Skip to Content

moore

Sunday November 13, 2011
Commenting on James Moore's Copyright Comments
Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore recently granted TVO's Search Engine an interview on Bill C-11 and Canadian copyright reform. The interview demonstrates yet again that Moore is one of the government's most skilled ministers - he knows the copyright file and is able to actively debate its merits. Yet the interview raised several points worth challenging. At 4:30, host Jesse Brown raises the issue of the "book burning" provision that requires students and teachers to destroy lessons that rely on the exception within 30 days of the conclusion of the course. Moore moves quickly to the departmental talking points that I obtained under Access to Information, which claim that this is simply part of the balance. Yet few teachers will rely on a provision that mandates the destruction of their materials at the conclusion of a course and few students will want to have their materials destroyed. The provision is an illusion - it looks at first glance like it will assist education, yet practically it will be ignored. At 6:00, Moore continues by arguing that it is common for students to encounter "time limited" materials. But this provision does more than just create time limitations for students since it creates matching time limits for teachers, which effectively ensures it will rarely be used. At 12:00, Brown and Moore engage in a discussion on digital locks, with Moore turning to the claim that the government isn't imposing digital locks, that the free market should work, government should get out of the way, and creators should be able to protect themselves against people who want to hack into their product and steal from them. Brown notes that a better balance is available by linking circumvention to infringment, to which Moore goes right back to the department talking points that simply state the government has the right balance. Moore's response demands a few comments.
moore on search engine
Content Country: 
Canada

Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore recently granted TVO's Search Engine an interview on Bill C-11 and Canadian copyright reform. The interview demonstrates yet again that Moore is one of the government's most skilled ministers - he knows the copyright file and is able to actively debate its merits. Yet the interview raised several points worth challenging.

At 4:30, host Jesse Brown raises the issue of the "book burning" provision that requires students and teachers to destroy lessons that rely on the exception within 30 days of the conclusion of the course. Moore moves quickly to the departmental talking points that I obtained under Access to Information, which claim that this is simply part of the balance. Yet few teachers will rely on a provision that mandates the destruction of their materials at the conclusion of a course and few students will want to have their materials destroyed. The provision is an illusion - it looks at first glance like it will assist education, yet practically it will be ignored. At 6:00, Moore continues by arguing that it is common for students to encounter "time limited" materials. But this provision does more than just create time limitations for students since it creates matching time limits for teachers, which effectively ensures it will rarely be used.

At 12:00, Brown and Moore engage in a discussion on digital locks, with Moore turning to the claim that the government isn't imposing digital locks, that the free market should work, government should get out of the way, and creators should be able to protect themselves against people who want to hack into their product and steal from them. Brown notes that a better balance is available by linking circumvention to infringment, to which Moore goes right back to the department talking points that simply state the government has the right balance.

Moore's response demands a few comments.

Friday September 30, 2011
Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore's Missing Copyright Tweets
Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore was busy on Twitter yesterday, pointing to many groups expressing support for Bill C-11, the new copyright bill. While he omitted pointing to releases from students ("anti-circumvention provisions will seriously undermine students', teachers' and the general public's use of copyrighted works.") and librarians ("legislation which does not include the right to bypass digital locks for non-infringing purposes is fundamentally flawed"), it is interesting to look at some of the organizations he did cite. For example, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is quoted as saying “this copyright legislation ensures Canadians who are blind or partially sighted have opportunities to participate in life.” What did the CNIB tell the Bill C-32 legislative committee in its brief?
moore's c-11 tweets
Content Country: 
Canada

Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore was busy on Twitter yesterday, pointing to many groups expressing support for Bill C-11, the new copyright bill. While he omitted pointing to releases from students ("anti-circumvention provisions will seriously undermine students', teachers' and the general public's use of copyrighted works.") and librarians ("legislation which does not include the right to bypass digital locks for non-infringing purposes is fundamentally flawed"), it is interesting to look at some of the organizations he did cite.

For example, the Canadian National Institute for the Blind is quoted as saying “this copyright legislation ensures Canadians who are blind or partially sighted have opportunities to participate in life.” What did the CNIB tell the Bill C-32 legislative committee in its brief?

Friday September 9, 2011
Government to Reintroduce Bill C-32 "In Exactly the Same Form"
Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore has told the Canadian Press that the government plans to reintroduce Bill C-32 in "exactly the same form" as the legislation that died on the order paper with the election call earlier this year.  Moore suggested that the government plans to pick up where it left off with the same bill and a legislative committee that will not call groups that appeared during the last round of hearings. That suggests the bill will be on the fast track as the committee heard from dozens of groups on Bill C-32 over several months in late 2010 and early 2011. Moore was also asked about the Wikileaks cables and the revelations of Canada caving to U.S. pressure on digital lock rules.  He argued that elements of the bill run contrary to what the U.S. prefers. While that is true with respect to ISP liability, that issue is seen as secondary by the U.S., which is far more focused on digital locks.  On digital locks, Bill C-32 was precisely what the U.S. was looking for and contrary to what the government heard during its national copyright consultation.
c-32 coming back
Content Country: 
Canada

Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore has told the Canadian Press that the government plans to reintroduce Bill C-32 in "exactly the same form" as the legislation that died on the order paper with the election call earlier this year.  Moore suggested that the government plans to pick up where it left off with the same bill and a legislative committee that will not call groups that appeared during the last round of hearings. That suggests the bill will be on the fast track as the committee heard from dozens of groups on Bill C-32 over several months in late 2010 and early 2011.

Moore was also asked about the Wikileaks cables and the revelations of Canada caving to U.S. pressure on digital lock rules.  He argued that elements of the bill run contrary to what the U.S. prefers. While that is true with respect to ISP liability, that issue is seen as secondary by the U.S., which is far more focused on digital locks.  On digital locks, Bill C-32 was precisely what the U.S. was looking for and contrary to what the government heard during its national copyright consultation.

Monday July 26, 2010
U.S. Developments Demonstrate Canada's C-32 Digital Lock Rules More Restrictive Than DMCA
Since the introduction of Bill C-32, I have consistently argued that the digital lock provisions are far more restrictive than what is required under the WIPO Internet treaties.  Now two recent developments in the U.S. demonstrate that the Canadian proposal is also considerably more restrictive than what is found in the U.S. First, a significant new appellate court case from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that the restrictions on circumventing an "access control" (ie. a digital lock that restricts access to a work rather than a copy control which restricts copying of a work) are far more limited than previously thought.  With language that bears a striking similarity to those arguing circumvention should be permitted for lawful purposes, the U.S. appeals court states: Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners. In other words, the U.S. court has found that DMCA is limited to guarding access controls only to the extent that circumvention would violate the copyright rights of the copyright owner.  This is very similar to what many groups have been arguing for in the context of Canadian legal reform.

Second, this morning the U.S. Copyright Office released the results of its anti-circumvention rulemaking process.  The process, which runs every three years, identifies the new exceptions to its anti-circumvention rules.  The recommendation covers six exceptions including circumvention of DVDs for short clips for education, documentary filmmaking, and non-commercial videos, circumvention to unlock and jailbreak cellphones, circumvention of video games for testing of security flaws, and circumvention of access controls of e-books where all available e-book editions contain restrictions of the read-aloud function.

While Bill C-32 has a similar exception for locked cellphones, the U.S. version includes both unlocking and jailbreaking to allow users to play unapproved applications on their devices.  Moreover, the U.S. DVD and e-book exceptions go much further than the Canadian proposal.  In the DVD context, Canadian documentary film makers have raised precisely this concern, yet the U.S. now has an exception for it and Canada would not under C-32.  Similarly, the new YouTube exception in the Canadian bill - trumpted as progressive - is still subject to digital locks, while the U.S. has specific exception for it.  Taken together, it becomes apparent that the Canadian rules are far more restrictive than even the U.S. DMCA.

Copyright 2010, copycon, copyright

Since the introduction of Bill C-32, I have consistently argued that the digital lock provisions are far more restrictive than what is required under the WIPO Internet treaties.  Now two recent developments in the U.S. demonstrate that the Canadian proposal is also considerably more restrictive than what is found in the U.S.

First, a significant new appellate court case from the 5th Circuit Court of Appeals has concluded that the restrictions on circumventing an "access control" (ie. a digital lock that restricts access to a work rather than a copy control which restricts copying of a work) are far more limited than previously thought.  With language that bears a striking similarity to those arguing circumvention should be permitted for lawful purposes, the U.S. appeals court states:

Merely bypassing a technological protection that restricts a user from viewing or using a work is insufficient to trigger the DMCA’s anti-circumvention provision. The DMCA prohibits only forms of access that would violate or impinge on the protections that the Copyright Act otherwise affords copyright owners.

In other words, the U.S. court has found that DMCA is limited to guarding access controls only to the extent that circumvention would violate the copyright rights of the copyright owner.  This is very similar to what many groups have been arguing for in the context of Canadian legal reform.

Monday July 12, 2010
James Moore's "Radical Extremist" Speech: Annotated Edition
As I pointed out when Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore delivered his "radical extremist" speech, the comments ran counter to many well-known groups and individuals who had expressed concern with the digital lock provisions found in C-32. Working with one of my research assistants Tamara Winegust, we've created an annotated edition of the speech that mixes in comments from politicians and groups involved in copyright issues.
copyright, coycon, Copyright 2010

As I pointed out when Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore delivered his "radical extremist" speech, the comments ran counter to many well-known groups and individuals who had expressed concern with the digital lock provisions found in C-32. Working with one of my research assistants Tamara Winegust, we've created an annotated edition of the speech that mixes in comments from politicians and groups involved in copyright issues.

Tuesday July 6, 2010
Angus Calls Out Moore on WIPO: Says Fails to Understand Treaty, Makes Mockery of Copyright Balance
NDP MP Charlie Angus has issued a lengthy letter to Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore and Industry Minister Tony Clement that challenges them on the digital lock provisions in Bill C-32. In a release on the letter, Angus states "the digital lock provisions will subject Canadians to arbitrary limitations on their legal rights of access. The government is trying to create the impression that this unbalanced approach to digital locks is necessary in order to bring Canada into compliance with WIPO and the Berne Convention. Nothing could be further from the truth." He adds: "The government is establishing a two-tiered set of rights. Bill C-32 offers rights that consumers will be restricted from exercising. These provisions make a mockery of the claim that the bill is balanced and pro-consumer. Either the government has a faulty understanding of international treaty obligations or is looking to use these existing treaties as a cover to pursue a specific political agenda. The New Democratic Party will challenge any provisions that would lead to unbalanced and arbitrary copyright legislation." The letter delves into much greater detail on the digital lock issue, discussing how there is flexibility at international law with Angus emphatically stating "I believe the government will be unable to produce evidence that these onerous digital lock provisions are the result of existing treaty obligations." As result, Angus makes a formal request that the government seek an opinion from WIPO on the issue of exceptions to digital locks.

In a shot at Moore's "radical extremists" comment, Angus notes:

I have taken the steps to reference these works so that you can be reassured that Canadians who raise questions about the unbalanced implementation of digital lock provisions are not pushing "extreme" or "radical" views.  In fact, they are much within the mainstream regarding international implementation of these treateis.  Indeed, if there is a case for any "extreme" behavior in the present debate it would be the decision of the government to use C-32 to pursue an agenda that goes well beyond the norms established by WIPO signatories.

As it stands now, Bill C-32 is a flawed piece of legislation that will face increasing opposition because of its one-sided approach to digital locks.  It is clear that either the government has applied a faulty understanding of international treaty obligations or is looking to use these existing treaties as cover to pursue a specific political agenda.  Either way, the New Democratic Party will challenge provisions that would create a two-tiered set of rights with arbitrary limitations on citizen's use of legally-accessed works.

Copyright 2010, copycon, copyright

NDP MP Charlie Angus has issued a lengthy letter to Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore and Industry Minister Tony Clement that challenges them on the digital lock provisions in Bill C-32. In a release on the letter, Angus states "the digital lock provisions will subject Canadians to arbitrary limitations on their legal rights of access. The government is trying to create the impression that this unbalanced approach to digital locks is necessary in order to bring Canada into compliance with WIPO and the Berne Convention. Nothing could be further from the truth." He adds: "The government is establishing a two-tiered set of rights. Bill C-32 offers rights that consumers will be restricted from exercising. These provisions make a mockery of the claim that the bill is balanced and pro-consumer. Either the government has a faulty understanding of international treaty obligations or is looking to use these existing treaties as a cover to pursue a specific political agenda. The New Democratic Party will challenge any provisions that would lead to unbalanced and arbitrary copyright legislation." The letter delves into much greater detail on the digital lock issue, discussing how there is flexibility at international law with Angus emphatically stating "I believe the government will be unable to produce evidence that these onerous digital lock provisions are the result of existing treaty obligations." As result, Angus makes a formal request that the government seek an opinion from WIPO on the issue of exceptions to digital locks.

Friday June 25, 2010
More Media Coverage of Moore's Radical Extremist Comment
The media picked up on Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore's "radical extremists" comment yesterday with the following stories:
Thursday June 24, 2010
What a Difference a Year Makes: James Moore in June '09 vs. June '10
Wednesday June 23, 2010
NDP MP Charlie Angus Responds to Moore's Attacks
The House of Commons is shut down due to today's earthquake, but I have received a copy of a release from the office of NDP MP Charlie Angus which responds to Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore's attack on fair copyright.  The NDP planned to issue the release today, but cannot due to the office closure.  I was given permission to post the release in its entirety. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASEJUNE 23, 2010 NEW DEMOCRATS CALL MOORE OFFSIDE FOR ATTACKING FAIR COPYRIGHT ADVOCATESMinister’s description of ‘radical extremists’ shows he’s in need of a time-out  
TIMMINS – Speaking at a G20 Chamber of Commerce event, Heritage Minister James Moore inexplicably lashed out at those who have raised concerns with his new copyright bill, C-32. Moore characterised fair copyright advocates as “babyish” and enemies of any copyright reform whatsoever. He called them “radical extremists” who must be “confronted every step of the way until they are defeated.” New Democrat Digital Affairs Critic Charlie Angus (Timmins-James Bay) said Moore’s comments are reminiscent of a war-time call-to-arms and are way out of line.

“Attacking teachers, students, artists and consumers who have legitimate questions about this legislation is ridiculous,” said Angus. “Instead of understanding and appreciating the nuances of balanced copyright, the Minister is appearing hyper-defensive and bombastic. I think he needs a time out.”

In his speech to the conference, Moore claimed the government’s attack on consumer rights are necessitated by Canada’s international obligations under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaties.  Angus says Moore simply has his facts wrong.

“James Moore shouldn’t hide behind international treaties to excuse the significant stumbling blocks he has put into the bill. All the experts, including those civil servants who drafted the bill, agree that it could be WIPO-compliant without his push for American-style protection for digital locks,” said Angus. “The Tories are pushing this failed agenda that will criminalize perfectly reasonable behaviour and deny educators legal access to works which they should logically have.”

Angus says Moore needs to tone down the rhetoric and get down to the serious business of working with all stakeholders on amendments that will improve the legislation.

“A Minister shouldn’t resort to name calling or start a war with fair-copyright advocates just because he doesn’t like the feedback he’s getting on Twitter,” said Angus.  “If Moore spent more time listening to the educators, experts, academics and artists who have serious issues with this bill, maybe his public statements wouldn’t be so out of line with everyday Canadians who simply want balanced legislation.”

-30-

For more information please contact:

George Soule, Caucus Press Secretary: 613-850-3448 or souleg@parl.gc.ca

The House of Commons is shut down due to today's earthquake, but I have received a copy of a release from the office of NDP MP Charlie Angus which responds to Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore's attack on fair copyright.  The NDP planned to issue the release today, but cannot due to the office closure.  I was given permission to post the release in its entirety.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
JUNE 23, 2010

NEW DEMOCRATS CALL MOORE OFFSIDE FOR ATTACKING FAIR COPYRIGHT ADVOCATES
Minister’s description of ‘radical extremists’ shows he’s in need of a time-out


 

Syndicate content