Received from Jurij Klufas: http://www.klufas.ca
;:In response to your survey!
Music File-sharing: What is your position on the issue of file-sharing in Canada--should it be illegal?
;:NO
Technological Protection of Copyrighted Materials: What is your position on using legislation to prohibit circumvention of TPMs?
;:Against
Educational Use of Internet Materials: Do you support an amendment to the Copyright Act to allow for the use of freely available materials on the Internet by participants in an educational program?
;:Yes
ISP Liability for copyright infringement: Should ISPs be protected from liability for copyright infringement when others merely transmit copyrighted materials over their facilities, or when others post copyrighted works on websites that the ISP merely hosts?
;:Yes
What is your position on the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage's proposed "notice and takedown" scheme requiring ISPs to remove content on the sole basis of alleged copyright infringement?
;:Against
Open Source Software: What is your position on increasing or mandating the use of open source software in government operations?
;:For
Spam: How do you propose to approach the problem of spam?
;:Move forward on "rights of users"
National ID cards: What is your position on National ID cards?
;:Not in Favour
Information
As of Monday June 21st, I've attended the three all candidates meetings for Parkdale-High Park, and I would just like everyone to know that Juri Klufas has not appeared at even one.
Non partisan. Just the facts.
To the admin; feel free to block this comment until confirmed by Klufas. As demonstrated above he should be accessible via email, but if he is unwilling to give a response, then you'll have to try to contact the various community/residence associations which hosted the all candidates meetings.
A list of the names of the organizations are available on Peggy Nash's site here
http://www.peggynash.ca/?Events
In the sense of fairness I'll list the other candidate sites, but they do not contain the names of the associations so serve no other purpose other than fairness
http://www.sarmitebulte.ca/
http://www.klufas.ca/
http://www.greenparty.ca/index.php?module=fatcat&fatcat[user]=viewCategory&fatcat_id=237
This doesn't directly tie into copyright but since it is only visible to end users when they click to find information about Mr. Klufas then I feel it is fair to inform people about Mr. Klufas. His terse response to the Copyright questions are also indicitive of his general effort during this campaign.
Sometimes being absent may be better...
Mr. Klufas may have given terse responses to the Internet questions, but at lest they were responses supportive of the Internet. If you look around our site you will see quite a bit of information about the anti-Internet views of Sarmite (Sam) Bulte.
If you look at her own campaign website under "[Sarmite in Parliament | http://www.sarmitebulte.ca/ParlSP.htm]" in the [section of the Hansard on copyright | http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/3/parlbus/chambus/house/debates/050_2004-05-07/han050_1200-e.htm] you can see references to her being proud of wanting to import US-style copyright extremism into Canada, policy that benefits only the large media and "software manufacturing" companies at the expense of other creativity (including and especially the independent and collaborative creativity facilitated by Internet-style communication).
She claims that the peer-to-peer file file sharing is legal under current copyright law. She is partly correct in that the technology is (and must remain) legal.
She is wrong in believing that sharing files without the authorization of the copyright holder is legal. the problem with the recording industry case was that the recording industry had lobbied for and received a levy on blank media, making "receiving" music (downloading) legal. In the case of "sending" music (uploading) the recording industry did not provide evidence. This underscores serious problems with the recording industry and the lack of technological knowledge from Heritage committee members like Bulte on copyright, not problems with our copyright act.
If there is a problem in the Canadian Copyright Act that this case exposed, that problem is the private copying regime that the Liberal party was proud of in their [response to our questions | http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/view/352].
If you care about the Internet being kept intact so that we can have online debates like this, then please talk to the candidates and clarify their positions. Challenge Bulte on her anti-Internet views. Find out from the NDP candidate why their party strongly endorses Bulte's views and ran on technology issues as if Bulte was their leader. Send email messages and ask Juri Klufas to encourage his party to respond as a party.
Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) consultant.
Already active
Thank your to the admin for this site, and informing people on this important issue.
I've already made my views known to Sarmite Bulte, via an email on the 27th of May, another email on the 15th of June, and a hand delivered letter on 16th of June. I'm still waiting for a response. :( During a phone call, I was assured that she and her campaign manager have read the hard copy and need time to formulate a response.
I believe she is a fair person and will listen to solid arguments. But it is a complex issue and she may need time to form an appropriate response. WIPO's WCT Section 11 requires making circumvention devices illegal. http://www.wipo.int/clea/docs/en/wo/wo033en.htm#P88_11974
But, we all agree, broad bans on circumvention devices will have horrible consequences.
http://www.eff.org/IP/DMCA/unintended_consequences.php
So formulating a response which ballances the WIPO requirement with sufficient exceptions to avoid unacceptable consequences is tough.
FWIW: This is going to be a close race. And will depend more upon the bridge to the island airport than copyright. No one believes the Liberals will stop the bridge, and it is a LARGE thorn in the side of the Libs. The rooms in all meetings were roaring with applause when other candidates bring it up, yet nothing but heckling is heard when Bulte brings it up.
"I will take my pen, and I will write zero helicopters". Jean Chretien 1993. Damn the consequences, Chretien just did it, and he won.
Martin needs to get a pad of pink paper, go down to the port authority and literally hand out pink slips in front of cameras. As for legal costs, they should either be eaten by the Feds or just disappear with a quick threat of blacklisting the development company for all future government projects.
Continuing chat/etc...
Glad you find this site useful. Even if you don't focus on Copyright, posting about what is happening in your riding is quite appropriate. It helps our campaign even if you aren't talking about copyright as it will drive other Internet-aware people to our site who might end up learning about what is happening. Post all you wish, and let your friends know about it as well.
Posting general election related information is likely better to do as a reply to the Election 2004: Parkdale--High Park message. I'm curious who realistically the other contenders are and what the mood is in this riding.
Now about the WIPO treaties (WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT), WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty (WPPT)):
Just because a treaty says you have to do something, doesn't mean you have to ratify this treaty. Just like we have a Senate that provides a "sober second thought", we have to ratify treaties which hopefully has the opportunity in this case to have a "sober FIRST thought".
We can look into where the treaty came from, and whether DFAIT should have been given the authority to sign Canada onto it when what it proposed was inadequately researched. Obviously this treaty benefits large intermediaries like the content industries and the distribution industries, but it does so by harming creators and users. Creators and users are who copyright is intended to be about, with intermediaries just being the "hired help".
In 1996 when these treaties were signed most people, especially politicians, had no idea what the Internet was and its fundamentally different nature to that of broadcast media. We still have politicians who clearly don't know about the Internet, and yet they wish to regulate it.
I just wrote the following as a reply to a weblog entry on Lawrence Lessig's site:
Free/Libre and Open Source Software (FLOSS) consultant.