The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is a Canadian institution worth protecting. Please join me in signing the petition below.
Mr. Prentice spends a great deal of time trying to convince the press that bill C-61 will limit damages to $500 total for a violation of this new act.
What, then, is the point? If a user downloads 20 or 30 films or 10,000 songs that’s $500 spread between the ALL of the artists – not quite worth it, is it?
In relation to digital locks Prentice refused to acknowledge or answer any questions. He did not seem to care that Canadians have paid for material that may be locked and would be prohibited from using that media in any way other than the methods prescribed to users by the media industries.
Josee Verner inspires a complete lack of confidence. When asked about a mashup of music (a teenager – or anyone for that matter – remixing video and music to create something new with existing work – something that is legal right now if attribution is given and the mashup is not created for profit) Josee was unable to either comprehend or answer the question. The answer is that yes, posting a mashup video to YouTube will now be illegal and could run Canadians $500 per offence. Imagine that – post a video to YouTube, get a bill for $500.
Josee went on to talk about respecting digital locks – completely ignoring the fact the government is ignoring that users have PAID FOR the material that is locked.
Jim acknowledges that the industry will indeed be pursuing teenagers for $20,000 per offense. He keeps saying balance – that balance doesn’t exist to my eyes.
Charlie was, quite literally, in the house today – taking Jim Prentice to school. While Charlie stayed on topic and was polite, Prentice nearly found himself censured for resorting to base profanity.
It’s odd that the federal branch of a party that once proclaimed to bring a “common sense” revolution shows so little sense. Enjoy this video of Charlie standing up for Canadian rights!
Jim later apologized for his use of the term “NDP BS”. It was not a shock to hear a thoughtless term coming from a man who clearly puts very little thought into what he says and does.
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)
