More conversation between the Minister of Industry and Charlie Angus this afternoon.
Format shifting and time shifting are *NOT* permitted in this bill, contrary to what the Minister claims. The section 29 additions are part of the permission part of the Copyright act in that the ability to do these things that most reasonable people believed (unfortunately incorrectly) were already perfectly legal in Canada. These additions can be (and will be) denied under both contracts and technical measures. Even on the issues that Prentice bothers to talk about, he is incorrect.
Claiming that format and time shifting are "made in Canada" is laughable, given these are understood already be part of the Fair Use provisions in many countries (including the USA). Canada was already behind our trading partners with implementing these required limits to Copyright, and still hasn't added them with this bill.
Either Minister Prentice hasn't spent the time to actually read and understand the bill he tabled, or he is deliberately misleading the public.
Here is the transcript:
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the government's made in the U.S.A. copyright legislation actually represents the radical rewriting of Canadian copyright policy because the absolute legal protections for digital locks deliberately blurs the distinction between private use and counterfeit.
From here on in the only consumer rights we will have are the ones U.S. industry gives us. If we try to protect our rights, it will come after us. So it will be legal to back up a movie to VHS, but not to a video iPod. How many 10 year olds go around with a VHS recorder in their backpack? They are not criminals. Why has the government declared war on Canadian consumers?
Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, nothing could be further from the truth in the assertions that my friend makes. If he takes the time to read the bill the educational exemptions are made in Canada. The format shifting exemptions are made in Canada. The time shifting exemptions are made in Canada. The private copying of music exemptions are made in Canada. The provisions relating to statutory damages are made in Canada.
All of these provisions of the bill are uniquely Canadian. My friend's comments about the U.S.A. DMCA are NDP BS.
The Speaker: Order. I could not follow all those letters, but the last two did not sound polite and I hope the hon. member did not say what I thought I heard. That would not be proper.
Mr. Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay, NDP): Mr. Speaker, the minister for eight tracks needs better speaking notes from the U.S. ambassador because he was speaking about the digital lock provisions that are leaving average Canadians open to predatory legal action. So let us look at the American record: lawsuits against 10 year olds; subpoenas
delivered at schools, against stroke victims, against dead people. We cannot put locks on citizens.
The New Democratic Party will fight every step of the way to protect innovators, consumers and artists from this predatory bill and the provisions that are within it. So if the minister will not stand up for Canada, why does he continue to act like a private butler to Ambassador Wilkins?
Hon. Jim Prentice (Minister of Industry, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I think it is only fair for the hon. member, to point out that in terms of protecting consumers, this government is protecting consumers. For the first time in Canadian law, format shifting will be permitted. Time
shifting will be permitted. The private copying of music will be permitted. All of that in favour of consumers contrary to what my friend is saying.