[kwlug-disc] Your country needs you (or "Our MP is on the C-32 committee") and the Long Census
ldoneill at golden.net
Sun Nov 21 11:48:20 EST 2010
I don't believe for a minute the the Tories canned the long census to
keep people out of jail. I think that they want to lose the information
to fund programs that they don't want paid for. I also am not under the
delusion that the Liberals care that much about the copyright bill.
My point was that in one case the Tories are claiming that they don't
want to Criminalize innocent Canadians and in the other they are
perfectly willing to do it. My faith in the opposition parties is that
they are willing to jump on this fact to make an issue out of it just to
cause problems for the Tories. We still need to send a message to Peter
Braid but I am not sure if he can talk while Harper is drinking water.
Russell McOrmond wrote:
> On 10-11-20 11:22 PM, Darryl O'Neill wrote:
>> The Tories killed the Long Census since they don't want to turn ordinary
>> citizens into criminals for not filling in a form.
>> But it would appear that they want to make it illegal to copy your own
>> DVD's onto your own iPod or Blackberry or to watch your own purchased
>> movie on your own PC.
> Here is the difference:
> With the Census they were well aware of what they were doing, but
> some of us disagree on the effect. In my mind the ultimate effect of
> getting rid of the long-form census will be to create an incentive to
> merge databases kept by different departments as well as data
> collected by the private sector. Short-form: the effect will be a far
> greater invasion of our privacy than the long form could ever be.
> With TPMs, they aren't aware of what TPMs are or the effect. They
> believe that TPMs added to content alone can "make decisions" (IE:
> just like believing a paperback book can read itself out loud), and
> are unaware of the impact of TPMs on our devices. They have never
> read section 3, 15 or 18 of the current copyright act or any WIPO
> treaties to notice that "access" was never before contemplated in
> copyright (for good reason), and thus "access controls" should never
> be contemplated in copyright. Like the special interest lawyers that
> are advising them, they don't eve know the difference between an
> access control and a use control.
> Please do not assume that any parliamentarians from any party are in
> favour of TPMs in Copyright because they actually understand what they
> are, or know what the consequences will be. Nearly all real-world
> impacts of TPMs will be unintended consequences.
>> I think that we should engage the Liberal/NDP's on this side of the
>> issue. I am sure that they would love to bring both of these issues up
>> again during questioning period.
> Please take a glance at the transcripts from the debate that has
> happened in the house so far of C-32. This is the starting position
> of the parties.
> The most important questions are those that happen in the committee.
> As they talk to witnesses, they need to be asking smart questions of
> them to try to get useful answers. Having them ask proponents of TPM
> legislation skill testing questions about real-world technology
> (cryptography, etc) would make for some pretty interesting committee
> hearings given it would be more obvious that the beneficiaries of TPMs
> are monopolist technology manufacturers and not copyright holders (IE:
> This is about BSA, not RIAA).
More information about the kwlug-disc