The CBC podcast “Search Engine” seems to have hit the nail on the head: Jim Prentice joined them in a telephone interview for a brief ten minutes; the minister fled the call hastily when it became clear that the host was informed on the matter of digital rights and was focused on asking valid, insightful questions.
When asked a very clear, concise question: “Will I be liable for damages if I break a digital lock on a CD?” Jim took four minutes dodging the question entirely. The answer is YES. He did not provide this answer.
When asked “Will any money obtained as damages for violations of this act go to the artists?” he was unable to provide a truthful answer. “It’ll go to the lawyers, first…” he said followed by “and then to the labels…”. So that answer would be NO, correct Mr. Prentice?
Why does he use terms like “…my understanding is…”? I was under the impression that Jim Prentice had taken an active roll in writing the bill – from his tentative nature in answering questions and his obvious lack of familiarity in what it entails that appears to be quite incorrect. Prentice states things like “No intent to defraud” as a clause that prevents users from being liable for damages – however the bill contains no language that guarantees this right. Mr. Prentice suggests that the label will have to establish intent but that is not what his bill states. Canadians need to call on the minister to either put it in writing or stop misleading the Canadian public!
Jim Prentice can’t provide a straight answer to a straight question – can anyone, least of all his constituents, trust him to deal fairly when it comes to copyright reform?
Listen for yourself – from CBC’s Search Engine (MP3 link, right click and Save Target As to download or click to listen)
I’m not entirely sure that he’s entirely sure exactly what the entirety of this proposed legislation is. However, if he is, he’s being purposefully misleading and has no place in our government.
balls.