The property rights statements I wish opposition parties were making.

Since Michael Geist had fun with a derivative of the statements from Ministers tony Clement and James Moore, I thought I would do the same.

While I am not a fan of levies on devices, I consider this a much lesser evil than non-owner locks on devices. I've written a modification of the statements with what I wished the opposition parties were saying.

OTTAWA, ONTARIO--( - Dec. 15, 2010) - Today, representatives of the opposition parties issued the following statement from the Rideau Centre, a popular holiday shopping destination:

"We are here to confirm that opposition parties will oppose the legalization or legal protection of non-owner locks added to devices as part of copyright legislation. These non-owner locks have been proposed in Bill C-32 and supported by the Conservative party of Canada. We believe that if property is locked that it must be the owner who decides who has keys, not anyone else. It must remain illegal for the owner to be locked out of what they own.

"We simply cannot support this attack on the property rights of technology owners. These non-owner locks are currently found on every mp3 player and smart phone on the market that is capable of accessing all the content from the major labels and major television and movie studios. Non-owner locks will hurt the economy, punish consumers and families, and send the wrong message during this fragile economic recovery.

"The opposition parties are committed to ensuring fairness and balance for consumers and creators as we update Canada's copyright laws. The governments protection of non-owner locks is not fair to anyone, and not legitimately part of Copyright law. Non-owner locks take control of technology away from technology owners, creators and audiences alike, which will harm all citizens and businesses including the Canadian music industry.

"We would also like to emphasize that the Government claims to have introduced the Copyright Modernization Act, Bill C-32, to modernize Canada's copyright legislation and bring it into the digital age. While the Government claims they drafted this Bill to best balance legalizing many of the everyday activities that Canadians are already engaging in online and ensuring that creators and rights holders have the protections they need to earn a living from their work in the digital age, they have clearly not done so.

"For no other type of property would the legalization or legal protection of non-owner locks be considered. Governments would never legally protect non-owner locks to all guns in a country where many are uncomfortable with the mere registration of long guns. Governments would never legally protect non-owner locks on our homes, alleging this was necessary to protect the insurance industry from fraud. Governments would never legally protect non-owner locks on our cars, allegedly to ensure that automobiles could never be used as a getaway vehicle.

"Canadians can rest assured that the opposition parties will stand with them against introducing protection for non-owner locks on our property.

"The Opposition parties top priority remains the economy. During this fragile economic recovery, the last thing Canadian families and consumers need is a massive attack on their property rights."