CIPPIC replies: Simcoe North Liberal candidate

;:To: Philippa Lawson, Executive Director, CIPPIC

;:From: Paul DeVillers, Liberal candidate, Simcoe North

;:Date: June 22, 2004

;:RE: your questionnaire on law and technology issues

;:Thank you for your efforts to survey parties and candidates about these issues. I must admit, however, that my personal experience has not given me much expertise in regard to these issues. However, I will do my best to clarify my position on each question.

;:1. re Music File-sharing

;:I understand that arguments can be made on both sides of this issue. However, given the need to protect the rights of those who create music and/or who produce it, I feel the law must attempt to prevent the wholesale copying of materials-especially when that copying can be shown to cut into the proceeds from sales.

;:At the same time, there seem to be some legitimate reasons for file-sharing: sharing of music which is not available on the market; sharing which has to do with research; sharing which is done for educational purposes, to name just a few.

;:As a result I would like to see laws which provide some exemptions but which generally allow for compensation to those who have made the music in the first place.

;:2. re Technological Protection of Copyrighted Materials

;:As my answer to #1 indicates, I would generally not support legislation which circumvented TPMs.

;:3. re Educational Use of Internet Materials

;:Again, as I indicated in #1, I believe educational uses need to be exempted - to some degree, at least-from copyright legislation. Thus, I would support such an amendment.

;:4. re ISP liability for copyright infringement

;:This is a complex issue, one which I have some difficulty making a judgement on. However, given that we are seeing a similar liability being discussed re the availability of pornography-especially child pornography-on ISP sites, it may be that ISPs may have to take some responsibility for providing access for activities which are illegal in nature. A similar argument is being raised in regard to long-distance phone carriers like Bell who are "enabling" fraudulent charges against consumers. Obviously all three of these issues, while different, are raising the question of the liability or responsibility of "the carriers." At this time, I am not sure where I would finally come down on this question.

;:5. re "notice and takedown" scheme

;:I am not familiar at this time with this proposal so do not feel I am in a position to make a valid comment.

;:6. re Open Source Software

;:Again, I do not feel able to comment on this.

;:7. re Spam

;:Spam, from what I read and hear, is becoming an increasing problem on the Internet. It would be preferable if the ISPs were able to better protect their clients from such unwanted and unauthorized materials. Again, I am uncertain whether legislation would be a suitable answer to this problem. I look forward to the report of the Task Force on this issue, due in the spring of 2005.

;:8. re National ID cards.

;:While I and the Liberal government have felt, since 9/11, the need for increased security measures throughout the country, one of which might be the introduction of improved ID cards for all Canadian nationals, the issues which such a card raise-personal privacy, projected costs, perceived uses-are sufficiently serious that we have not made the decision to introduce such a card.

;:Clearly a balance must be struck between national security and personal privacy; no one in our government wishes to see the introduction of a card which would lead to serious losses in privacy, perhaps even to the extent that such a card would allow government monitoring of individuals. Democracy, as we in Canada understand it, does not allow such state scrutiny and we in government must be cautious in avoiding legislation that would open doors to such scrutiny in the name of "security."

;:Thank you for your interest. I hope these answers are of value to you.