No. The really important question is this: Why do so many REALLY, REALLY rich white guys want people to vote for Mitt Romney and/or against Barack Obama? (face it, folks, the way things are structured today, nobody else has a hope...)
I'm not an American voter so I shouldn't say more but I can't quite resist.
Maybe it's because they're such patriots. But I doubt it.
Maybe it's because they want your best. But I doubt that, too.
But think about this question for more than a few seconds before you decide how to vote, please. And don't settle for simple answers either. This is one case where Occam's razor is more likely to slit a throat than give a close shave.
Thank you for writing to me about copyright reform in Canada. I appreciate you taking the time to share your views with me and have noted your concerns regarding the impact that providing legal protection for technological protection measures (TPMs) may have on different parties. I have read your previous correspondence as well.
Copyright is a marketplace framework law. Accordingly, copyright owners may decide whether to use TPMs for their content and consumers whether to pay for such content. Detailed information about Bill C-11 is available online atwww.balancedcopyright.gc.ca.
Our government wants legislation that balances both the rights of creators and the interests of consumers.
Once again, thank you for taking the time to write and share your concerns with me. I appreciate the opportunity to respond.
James Moore, PC MP
Mr. Moore,Thank you for what I perceive to be a much more individual reply than previously. I regret to say that your assurances of the law's balance of the different rights at stake do not convince me. Rights holders (often, from many artists' point of view, rights grabbers, frankly) get far too much consideration and rights of fair use, presumption of innocence of the consumer, and a healthy guardianship of a creative commons that should be allowed to grow with orderly expiry of copyrights are not protected adequately.The RIAA and MPAA and their member organizations have demonstrated graphically and without any ambiguity their willingness to bully individuals into outrageous and financially devastating settlements, to go on fishing expeditions and to do so when their failing profits are more closely related to the sagging quality of their product than to the results of piracy. This kind of behaviour should not be rewarded in the court (and that sort of thing is gradually being stopped) but even more it should not be protected by law.Academic studies, time and time again, show that the most widely-shared (by any means) artists are the most successful ones. The most stunning cases of these are the careers of Radiohead, Metallica and even the Canadian, Neil Young, who released the whole Living With War album online -- I listened to it several times that way before buying it myself. So the whining of multi-national bullies, who effectively want the right to pillage Canadian families for the meagre improvement of their American bottom line, should not be brooked.Is there anything even in the latest incarnation of C-11 that comes at the issues from that angle? I think not. Instead this government is intent on defending the privilege and profit of the few on the backs of the many. Fortunately, the best word describing that is highly parliamentary and I cry it out: "Shame! Shame!" Send me a new bulletin when your policies are more in the defense of the people's interests than they are currently, please, and on this subject, not before.Sincerely,Arthur N. Klassen
to James Moore, MP for Port Moody--Westwood--Port Coquitlam
Dear Mr. Moore,
I have little hope that you pay attention to any of my e-mails any more. With a margin of 10s of thousands in every election, you need not pay attention but I implore you to do so. The digital lock provisions in bill C-11 are too high a price to pay in freedoms for any of the good that might be in the bill and it ought to be quashed now.
My government is already culpable trying to gin up support for tighter controls by having the MPAA and RIAA lobby the US to call us a nation of pirates, but you and I know that it is not so and it must be depressing to the agitators that no hysteria has flowed from these attempts.
In fact, it is demonstrable that freely allowing piracy (at least of music) ultimately does more good than harm to both musicians and publishers. Just ask Neil Young how many copies of "Living With War" he sold after freely publishing the whole album on the internet. Just ask Radiohead. And then ask Metallica how much dislike they garnered by siding with the lockdown artists.
We don't need tighter locks, and we don't need to give Multinational bullies more opportunities to pillage Canadian families at many 100s of times the value of any piracy they may have engaged in. This legislation does exactly the opposite of what a government ought to do in this particular vein. A government ought to protect its citizens from bullies but this legislation has the potential to unleash the bullies' unjust wrath against Canadians.
It is a good thing that cries of "Shame! Shame!" fall within parliamentary language, for that is the weakest epithet your government deserves for considering this legislation. Drop the bill. Write something with reasonable protections (at 1000ths of the strength of the current one) for commercial interests but with primary protection for Canadians and for a growing, vibrant public domain. Do not hamper the tinkerers of today when they or their children are sure to become the engineers and innovators of tomorrow.
Arthur N. Klassen
Ireland has already fallen but the rest of Europe is resisting ACTA and even America is taking a second look at it after SOPA and PIPA were stopped in their tracks there. Now it's our turn.
Monday is the beginning of final hearings on Bill C-11 which has in the last stages turned draconian.
Michael Geist's page (click here) tells you what you need to know. I live in James Moore's riding now and so he'll hear from me from both directions -- but I think my e-mail address is on his spam source list. He doesn't reply to me -- that's how a member of parliament rolls in the digital age, I guess. Here's what you should do:
1. Find your MP here (ou ici).
2. Write a polite note expressing your opposition to pre-emptive site blocking, expanded enabler definitions, broad protections for the companies that exploit artists, warrantless subscriber list handovers -- all coupled with a higher iPod tax. And send it individually to the e-mails listed in Michael Geist's page (committee members and ministers) as well as to your own MP.
Just to be sure they get it, write it out on paper, address an envelope and send it to them in Canada WITHOUT A POSTAGE STAMP (for parliamentary mail, that works!) -- but our postal system isn't fast enough to get it to them before Monday's opening.
3. Sign, for instance, the online petition at OpenMedia.ca
4. Do creative things that are outside the control of the corporate gatekeepers of culture.
5. Spread the word, and resist the feeling of impending doom. Keep calm and carry on.
How do we stop this? I don't know if we can, but we can try.
If everyone who uses any google product were to give google one piece of feedback every day objecting to that new policy and stating it plainly to them that:
If this goes viral, google will have to change. Will the rest of the 99% hear my voice and use the people's microphone? It's the only way I can imagine we'll get through to power that still thinks it's not evil so that maybe they'll back off.
slashdot (a little overblown, as usual):
I wrote the following e-mail to the the public consultations address, firstname.lastname@example.org, cc-ing it to my Member of Parliament (find yours here -- ask me for help if you need it!):
I am a lifelong innovator as a software developer for the last 25 years. I expect to continue doing this for a further unspecified period and I am committed to seeing the best and the brightest be able to develop to their full potential here in Canada, continuing to produce wealth and competitive advantages for Canada well into the lifetimes of my grandchildren. Because of that, I strongly oppose any trading away of freedom to tinker, to study, to reverse engineer, to learn the State of the Art from existing devices. Bill C-11, while less egregious than its forebears, is still an onerous impairment to that freedom but going further, as the TPP IP chapter negotiations would have us do is an unacceptable further impairment.
I urge my government to stop restricting their geeks from becoming excellent geeks. Broader trade is important, yes. But even more important is the development in Canada, by Canadians, in service of Canadian-owned companies of unique and valuable products that can command market premiums wherever they go, regardless of free trade pacts. And the simplest easy way to enable that is for Canada to insist on preserving for its geeks, present and future, the freedom to tinker, study, reverse engineer and learn for private study even where doing so for profit would represent a theft of others' duly gained competitive advantage.
Just as the right to media-shift, to back up, to maintain personal access to digital assets that individual consumers may have purchased is of inestimable value to the consumer, even more the freedom to tinker for geeks and potential geeks, present and future is of inestimable value to all Canadians. Trading such a birthright in return for the week-of-pottage that a free trade agreement might give is as foolish now as it has ever been.
Arthur N. Klassen
Looking further at the press around this deal, I have to assert, as well, that this agreement looks bad in a bunch of other directions, including opening threats to the high-quality for slightly-higher-price milk and egg market in Canada, so there is no shortage of reasons why an informed Canadian should oppose forging such close ties with all these nations at such a high cost.
Consider writing a letter of some variety to