Canadian Industry Minister Jim Prentice Takes Questions, Provides Little Answers (On Copyright Reform)
Posted by Tyler Kinch on December 8th, 2007
At a holiday open house for his constituents in
When a member of the press asked who was asking for
He avoided or provided very weak answers to the questions of the over 60 ordinary citizens who came out to ask him questions.
I only managed to get my question in at the last moment, asking him if he had consulted with any of the Canadian Artists or Songwriters who oppose the direction this piece of legislation is expected to go. He ignored my question.
Many Canadian artists have formed a group known as the Canadian Music Creators Coalition and they have been speaking out on this type of legislation. They want Canadians to be able to share music, and they don’t want to see their record companies sue their fans. They want to go after the people making profits off of their music illegally, but they don’t want to sue fans that are simply ripping music of their CDs and putting in on their iPod or sharing it with some friends.
Jim Prentice states that all views will be heard, once the bill reaches committee level. Why wait until then? Prentice should not only be listening to the concerns of the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) when drafting the bill, but he should listen to all stakeholders (artists, songwriters and consumers.) Don’t waste parliament’s time by waiting until the bill has been tabled before consulting with all stakeholders.
It’s time for Jim Prentice to listen.
Now here’s what you can do:
Email:
Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca.
Snail Mail:
Jim Prentice
House of Commons
Parliament Buildings
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6 (you don’t need a stamp!)
Leave a message on Prentice’s voice-mail (As of 5:00PM today, all the voice mailboxes are full. Please try again on Monday… don’t let this die.)
Ottawa office - (613) 992-4275
Calgary office - (403) 216-7777
Minister office - (613) 995-9001
And don’t forget to write letters to the editor of your local newspapers.
December 8th, 2007 at 8:43 pm
This is what citizen journalism is all about. Excellent.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:12 pm
thanks tyler! if there are any other reports you know of please send them along. we need to yell long and loud about this. kudos to you!
December 8th, 2007 at 9:47 pm
hey tyler, video isn’t showing up yet. i’ll keep checking.
December 8th, 2007 at 9:50 pm
youtube seems to have gone kerflooie. tyler, you broke youtube. i’m telling. lol
December 8th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
Yeah.. I’m glad it’s not just me
Happened right after I posted this video… maybe Prentice found about the video where he made a fool of himself, and is using his mighty powers to shut down the site 
December 8th, 2007 at 9:58 pm
A levy on ISPs sounds like a bad idea as well. With a fixed pot to draw from, copyright content creators will fight over it. When new faces appear, they will be attacked and silenced, since they will make the take smaller for existing creators.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:01 pm
Saskboy, I’m not promoting it as the perfect idea. I see the exact same flaws that you pointed out in it. However, it’s the songwriters voice and I will listen to that, but I will also listen to smaller independent artists. It’s a balancing act, that sadly Prentice hasn’t even attempted.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:08 pm
i don’t like the levy either. it smacks of the socan problem, where small places pay for the right to present smaller, local live music acts. yet none of the money socan collects is ever disbursed to those same artists. still, as a member of soc, at least they’re looking for alternatives. funny how the free market conservative heroes are suddenly all cuddling up to the notion of punitive protectionism for the poor beleaguered giant conglomerates. poor poor babies.
December 8th, 2007 at 10:34 pm
poor baby. we’ve been criticized for not meeting wipo treaty obligations. funny this government had no problem pissing on the kyoto treaty that this nation signed. but but but the ceos. a
December 9th, 2007 at 1:32 am
He’s a lot more concerned with Canada’s WIPO obligations than with our Kyoto obligations, isn’t he?
December 9th, 2007 at 3:50 am
A couple comments. Based on what I know about the WIPO treaties, I’m content to have us remain in limbo. Any criticism of them ought to focus on them, however, rather than making the Kyoto analogy. The facts are just too different. I actually thought Prentice was fair (”avez vous des avis?” was perhaps too cute), despite the fact that I expect to profoundly disagree with him once the new Bill is introduced. It’s not an illegitimate aim to try and bring the country’s legislation in line with the rest of the Western world - but I would tend to agree with Mr. Geist et. al. that the better thing to do is, well, nothing. As to consultation, I think it’s too early to cry foul. The public mood was apparent from Liberal consultation, consultation that was done after Bill C-60 was introduced. Moreover, Canadian Heritage and Industry have been consulting heavily with legal and other academics - the diversity of views is well known. I’d like to see more, and more informed, debate on the topic, and expect to be angry about all this, but fair is fair.
December 9th, 2007 at 5:50 am
well matt what you say is fair. i only raised kyoto as an example of this government’s inconsistent approach to treaties that canada has signed. i didn’t mean to imply that there were any particular parallels. but i will agree that we need to at least stall this because consultation with the public after the fact is too damn late.
December 10th, 2007 at 8:00 pm
Ape: I disagree, because it’s not “after the fact.” The reason it’s not is, as I say above, there was public consultation under the Liberals when C-60 hung over our head - the proof of my point is the fact that this site exists before the Bill has been seen. Since C-60 a Heritage/Industry group has solicited the views of academics. Now, if 2nd reading on the bill is rushed, then I’ll agree whole-heartedly. But let’s be fair and accurate in our criticisms: chances are this will be a bad law. I’d rather it be criticized for being a bad law than for being poorly passed.