Canadian Politics, Copyright Law, Lawyers, WIPO, Etc.

For those who may have come in half way on my articles about Canadian Politics, Copyright Law, Lawyers, and the WIPO, there’s an important fact that you should know – all of my articles on copyright are being emailed to the Prime Minister of Canada, the opposing party leaders, and to significant political figures (ministers, my local MP, etc).

Why am I doing this? Easy. It’s called documentation. I’ve dealt with government departments a lot in the past. Before my body gave out, and I was no longer capable of working, I was fairly well known in Washington DC, and also in Sacramento. Part of my work involved dealing with the large American law firms, firms far larger than McCarthy Tetrault or Stikeman Elliot. I’ve given testimony to government agencies in the United States in the past, and probably will again, once my surgery is complete.

And documentation is important. I ended up in a fight with Morrison and Foerster (the firm who represented Novell Inc. in their legal battle with The SCO Group) at one point, and was able to provide documented proof to the government agency involved that the firm had lied in a submission.

So what I am doing, is documenting the lies, errors, and omissions that I’m seeing. I’m not being polite about it. Quite frankly I’m in too much pain, and too damned stoned, to bother with being polite. Instead I’m calling it as it is.

I don’t expect to make any friends doing this. And quite frankly I don’t care. What I care about is the documentation. Documentation which proves that the information which has been feed to the ministers involved is incorrect. Documentation that can be used against any law which does not take into account the will of the Canadian public as shown by the Canadian Copyright Consultation. Documentation which gives the opposition parties in Parliament points to use in questioning any law which is proposed.

And I’ve had a lot of help in putting together this documentation. I would like to thank Mihaly Ficsor, Barry Sookman, James Gannon, Richard Owens, Michael Geist, Howard Knopf, Sam Trosow, Corey Doctorow, and Nina Paley, all of who have provided information that I’ve used – and no, I’m not being sarcastic. Those who wrote in opposition helped tremendously to show me what all of the issues are.

Regards

Wayne Borean

Thursday April 29, 2010

Advertisements

Canadian Copyright Consultation Opposed By A Little Known Canadian Lawyer Richard Owens

I want to take another look at Richard Owens ‘Noises Heard: Canada’s Recent Online Copyright Consultation Process.’ Specifically I want to look at one statement, where Richard says ‘For instance, 70% of the total submissions were “form letters” originating from a single little-known group of modchip distributors – the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights (CCER) – that had its form letter extensively circulated internationally on BitTorrent- related sites.’

Richard is using the term ‘modchip distributors’ in a perjorative manner. He’s deliberately trying to inflame the discussion, to try and prevent the members of the CCER and those who used the CCER’s form letter from being heard. Now this might be allowed in a court of law, but it is frowned on in the court of public opinion.

Let me re-word his statement:

For instance, 100% of the complaints about the submission process came from a little known group of lawyers.

Just as nasty. After all, most Canadians are quite familiar with the joke about why the Shark didn’t eat the Lawyer. And we have to remember that it’s legal to be a lawyer in Canada, just like it’s legal to manufacture and sell mod chips. I also challenge Richard’s ability to determine that the manufacturing and selling of mod chips is against the interest of Canadians, even if his clients believe that it’s against their interests. Richard is not an economist, so any evaluation he could make on this situation is automatically suspect.

But is his assertion that the membership of the CCER is made up of mod chip distributors true? Let’s look at the membership of the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights.

Battlegoat StudiosFrom their ABOUT page – BattleGoat Studios is a Canadian Software Developer committed to developing leading edge “Intelligent Strategy Games” for the PC.  Founded by George Geczy (Lead Programmer) and David Thompson (Lead Designer), the team firmly believes that Strategy Gamers are looking for more sophisticated games that also remain fun to play. BattleGoat insists that their approach to development will always emphasize an accurate, heavily researched environment assuring players an entertaining and immersive gameplay experience.

ConsoleSource.ComFrom their blog – The Wiikey fusion is a brand new mod chip for Nintendo Wii by the Wiikey Team. This revolutionary mod chip will allow you to play your backup ISOs from any SD card or DVD – it should be noted that they also sell a wide variety of other products.

GameStuff.CaConditions of Use – Disclaimer: In many countries it is legal to sell, install, and use modchips in video game consoles for the purpose of playing backups of legally purchased software and homebrew software. However, the legislation in some countries does not allow you to use, distribute, or sell modchips. You, and you, only, are responsible for complying with the law in your country – it should be noted that they also sell a wide variety of other products.

GModz.CaFrom the main page – GMODZ Inc has been in business for the last 9 years serving Canada and USA for mods – they also sell a variety of repair components, which offer less costly options than purchasing OEM parts.

Go Cyber ShopFrom the ABOUT page – GO CYBER SHOP!™, GO CYBER SHOP 2005 LTD. is a premier Canadian online e-tailer in business since 1996. Our main goal is to provide customers with a stress free online shopping experience with the highest quality products at wholesale prices – they do sell mod chips, but also offer sales and service of consoles.

iPhoneAnywhere.CaFrom the main page – We have just completed and posted all new tutorials for both Mac and PC which outline the steps required for unlocking and activating a 1.1.1 iPhone – the company does not sell mod chips, though it does sell hardware which makes unlocking an IPhone possible.

KicK GamingFrom the ABOUT page – Basically we are your #1 source for video game accessories. We have been providing video game accessories to many satisfied customers across the world since 2004. We offer a large variety of gaming accessories, and other related items, at affordable prices – while they do sell ‘mods’ they all appear to be cosmetic, things like LED illuminated fans, not what anyone I’ve meet would consider a ‘mod chip’.

modchip.caFrom the main page – your DUTY FREE modshop since 1998 – that seems pretty conclusive.

MODCHIPCENTRALFrom the main page – Do not pay customs, duties, or import fees on all modchips purchased from us – that seems pretty conclusive.

So what do we have? Five out of Eight members sell mod chips. Selling mod chips is legal in Canada, unlike selling unpasteurized milk, or ungraded eggs. Three out of Eight members don’t sell mod chips. If I was a member of the CCER, I’d have my lawyer send a letter to Richard Owens, the Osgoode Hall Law School, and the Government of Canada complaining about Richard’s article, and threatening legal action unless he makes the appropriate corrections.

Regards

Wayne Borean

Wednesday April 28, 2010

Why Is Michael Geist In Favour Of Digital Rights Management/Technical Protection Measures?

I was disturbed to find that Michael Geist has come out in favour of Digital Rights Management/Technical Protection Measures in an article published today. In his own words:

1.   Anti-Circumvention Rules

The rules on digital locks are easily the most controversial aspect of the forthcoming bill.  Yet there is more agreement here than disagreement.  At this stage, the majority of stakeholders accept that Canada should implement the WIPO Internet treaties and with it introduce anti-circumvention rules into Canadian copyright law. The fact that we move forward on WIPO should please the U.S. and many copyright lobby groups.

I – along with many others – have argued that it should only be a violation of the law to circumvent a technological protection measure if the underlying purpose is to infringe copyright. Circumvention should be permitted to access a work for fair dealing, private copying, or any other legal purposes.  This approach – which is similar (though not identical) to the failed Bill C-60 – would allow Canada to implement the WIPO Internet treaties and avoid some of the negative “unintended consequences” that have arisen under the DMCA.  It is also the approach that was recently adopted in India and bears some similarity to both New Zealand and Japan.  While some would not love this – some would want more, others less – it is likely an acceptable compromise to most.

I’d like to remind Michael that there was more agreement than disagreement that blacks were an inferior species in North America late into the 1900s, and that there is still a strong belief that Native Canadians are inferior in parts of Canada even today. Just because there is some agreement on something doesn’t mean that it’s right.

Michael also ignores the specific language of the WIPO Copyright Treaty, which under Article 11, Obligations concerning Technical Measures says:

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

Note the highlighted word. AUTHORS. There is no allowance for corporations (which by definition cannot be authors) to implement DRM/TPM, and there is no protection for DRM/TPM implemented by a corporation, unless the AUTHOR is in agreement.

And a lot of authors aren’t in agreement. Film Maker Nina Paley turned down an offer from NetFlix to distribute her film Sita Sings the Blues because Netflix refused to distribute it without DRM.

Corey Doctorow has an article titled ‘Can You Survive A Benevolent Dictatorship‘ discussing issues with DRM/TPM on the Apple IPad, in which he says:

There’s an easy way to change this, of course. Just tell Apple it can’t license your copyrights–that is, your books–unless the company gives you the freedom to give your readers the freedom to take their products with them to any vendor’s system. You’d never put up with these lockdown shenanigans from a hardcopy retailer or distributor, and you shouldn’t take it from Apple, either, and that goes for Amazon and the Kindle, too.

What a lot of people don’t know is that Blue-Ray was supposed to include a managed copy system. Scenic Labs attempted to implement the managed copy system, and ran into severe problems. They didn’t even have the option of not using the Advanced Access Content System unless they burned the discs in their own facility, which according to the article wasn’t feasible.

The Apple IPad. The Amazon Kindle. The Microsoft XBox360. The Nintendo Wii. The Sony PS3. Blue Ray Players. All of these default to ‘DRM ON’ even if the author doesn’t want it. All of them push DRM at authors. None of them give the choice that the WIPO Treaty was supposed to provide. None of them are legal under the plain language of the treaty.

The Americans make a huge fuss about being WIPO compliant with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act of 1998, but the DMCA does not recognize the special status that was accorded to authors, instead it accords this status to publishers, which is in conflict with the WIPO Copyright Treaty.

There are other issues with DRM/TPM that I’m going to cover in another article, but for now I have one question:

Why do you support DRM/TPM Michael?

Regards

Wayne Borean

Tuesday April 27, 2010

Foreign Submissions To The Canadian Copyright Consultation – Richard Owens Is Right, We Should Weed Them Out

From Richard’s article posted on the Osgoode Hall website:

Abstract

Teachings and Cautions

This short comment analyses the results of the Government of Canada’s recent on-line public consultation on its planned reform of copyright laws, held from July 20th, 2009 to September 15th, 2009. Defects in the Consultation process are striking. While the results of our study revealed a sharp gender, age and Anglophone bias in the submissions, of particular concern is the apparent lack of verification of identity, uniqueness, age (voting or otherwise) or citizenship of those making the submissions. For instance, 70% of the total submissions were “form letters” originating from a single little-known group of modchip distributors – the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights (CCER) – that had its form letter extensively circulated internationally on BitTorrent- related sites. As a result, it appears that many of the submissions were not even made by Canadians. Our study raises serious issues regarding the design and results of the public consultations, and of the need to ensure that future online consultations are better designed to properly represent the views and interests of the Canadian body politic. The government of Canada is urged to make available its own analysis of the submissions, as well as the nature and results of its verification process, if any.

Thus spoke Zarathustra. Or rather thus spoke Richard Owens, an Osgoode Hall Law Professor who also works as a lawyer at the law firm of Stikeman Elliot. Let’s pick his statement apart. Firstly he classifies his write up as a ‘short comment’. Since it comes in at 5515 words, I feel that his definition of ‘short’ and mine are not the same. Still he isn’t as verbose as Barry Sookman.

Then he claims that ‘Defects in the Consultation process are striking. Curiously it was described as a success in the House of Commons. Possibly Richard has a low opinion of politicians, and that is why he ignored this statement.

Then he claimed that many of the submissions were not even made by Canadians. This is a serious issue. Extremely serious. I decided to go back to the database, and look at some of the submissions, to see if they were filed by persons or organizations with close foreign connections.

The first one I checked for was SOCAN (Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada), and yes, they filed a submission. Unfortunately SOCAN has members who are not Canadian, one example being Sony Music.

Then of course there’s the Canadian Publishers Council, which also filed a submission, and which has a lot of foreign members.

The joint submission about why Canada should not adopt ‘Fair Use’ was signed by many organizations who have foreign members.

Let me see – does the name ‘American Federation of Musicians‘ sound foreign to you? It does to me.

The Entertainment Software Association of Canada appears to be Canadian only in name.

Corey Doctorow has moved to England. I don’t know if he’s still a Canadian citizen.

Kestenberg Siegal Lipkus LLP works for a lot of foreign firms, and they filed a submission.

Barry Sookman does a lot of work for foreign firms.

OK, Richard has a point. We should weed out all of these foreign submissions, before the new copyright legislation is written. Richard, you win this round.

Regards

Wayne Borean

Monday April 26, 2010

What Did The Three Amigos Tender To The Canadian Copyright Consultation?

For those who missed the start of this, the Three Amigos in the title are Barry Sookman, James Gannon, and Richard Owens.

Any evaluation of the Canadian discussion about Copyright Law has to take into account the 8300 submissions that the government received during the Copyright Consultation. Some people, like Richard Owens are unhappy that Canadians choose to be heard (for details read Richard’s article ‘Noises Heard: Canada’s Recent Online Copyright Consultation Process‘ – note that this is a PDF) in which he attacks anyone who:

1) Isn’t a lawyer

2) Doesn’t work for an entertainment conglomerate

At least that’s how I read his diatribe.

According to Barry Sookman (his own words taken from his blog), Richard is the past chair of the board of directors of the University of Toronto Innovations Foundation, a member of the board and former Executive Director of the Centre for Innovation and Policy at the University of Toronto Faculty of Law, and an adjunct professor of copyright and technology law at the University of Toronto (see Barry’s article ‘The Owens analysis of the Canadian copyright consultations: what are the implications?

Since this was such an important consultation according to Richard Owens, that plebeians shouldn’t be allowed to take part in it, I decided to read his submission, and see his documented opinion on the issue. I was totally horrified to find out that he DIDN”T FILE A SUBMISSION! (Check here for a search done on the keyword OWENS – the only Owens found is a Gregory Owens who is one of the signers of the submission filed by the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights)

So we have someone who was so uninterested that he didn’t file a submission, complaining that others filed submissions. He should be ashamed of himself. You can’t have any effect on politics unless you are politically active.

Since I was already looking, I thought I’d check out James Gannon and Barry Sookman as well. James, who works with Barry didn’t file a submission (keyword search on Gannon). You do get a hit, but it’s Barry Sookman’s submission, apparently James did some research for Barry.

So out of the Three Amigos, the only one who filed a submission was Barry. Barry calls his an essay, and at 13,324 words, I’d agree. I’m still reading it, however it appears to have Barry’s usual level of accuracy, I’ve spotted a couple of errors in the first few paragraphs. I’ll be dissecting it in detail later – I’ll say one thing for Barry – he is verbose.

However at least he attempted to address the issue, unlike the other two, and deserves kudos for that.

So, does a lawyer who couldn’t be bothered to file his own submission have a right to criticize the non-lawyers who did? I don’t think so. Over to you Richard, if you think you can explain your way out of this.

Regards

Wayne Borean

Saturday April 24, 2010

The Follow Up Letter I Used For 'This Ain’t No Popularity Contest – It’s Politics', Copies Were Sent To The Government

Below is a copy of the email that I sent to cover my follow up article ‘This Ain’t No Popularity Contest – It’s Politics.’ Again I mentioned my concerns, and asked for a response. The email was sent April 21st in the evening, it’s now April 24th in the afternoon, and I still have had no response from the three people who haven’t made a declaration yet.

I’m not printing this here to take another shot at my opponents. I’m printing it here, as public documentation. The following elected politicians received copies:

Stephen Harper – Prime Minister of Canada – Conservative

Charlie Angus – New Democrat

Stephane Dion – Liberal

Gilles Duceppe – Party Leader – Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton – Party Leader – New Democrat

Dan McTeague – Liberal

Byron Wilfert – Liberal

Tony Clement – Minister of Industry – Conservative

James Moore – Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages – Conservative

Michael Ignatieff – Party Leader – Liberal

The politicians in question all have an interest in copyright law, either through being Minister, being part of the shadow cabinet, or personally (Charlie Angus is a musician). These are the people who are going to be involved in the parliamentary debate when the Conservative Government submits the new copyright law. As I’ve said, I’m going to be documenting this entire thing, as our political representatives need to be informed of what is going on.

Regards

Wayne Borean

Saturday April 24, 2010

Here’s the letter:

The responses to my earlier article ‘A Call For Disclosure – Who Do The Professionals Represent And Why Are They Hiding The Connection?’ were amusing to say the least. What no one knew was that I’d been planning the article since January, and was only waiting on someone to put their head in the noose. Richard Owens happened to be the poor soul who did so. I almost feel sorry for him – but hell – I’m a chess player. You never feel sorry when you take an opponents piece. In fact I have to thank him for being careless enough to write what he did. And I did thank him – publicly. You can read about it here:

http://madhatter.ca/2010/04/21/this-aint-no-popularity-contest-its-politics/

God I love chess.

Wayne Borean aka The Mad Hatter

Writer, Musician, Recording Engineer
http://madhatter.ca

The Cover Letter I Used For My Request For Disclosure – Copies Were Sent To The Government

Below is a copy of the email that I sent to the people who’s allegiances I was questioning, explaining my concerns, and asking for a response. The email was sent April 20th in the evening, it’s now April 23rd in the evening, and I still have had no response from the three people who haven’t made a declaration yet.

I’m not printing this here to take another shot at my opponents. I’m printing it here, as public documentation. The following elected politicians received copies:

Stephen Harper – Prime Minister of Canada – Conservative

Charlie Angus – New Democrat

Stephane Dion – Liberal

Gilles Duceppe – Party Leader – Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton – Party Leader – New Democrat

Dan McTeague – Liberal

Byron Wilfert – Liberal

Tony Clement – Minister of Industry – Conservative

James Moore – Minister of Canadian Heritage and Official Languages – Conservative

Michael Ignatieff – Party Leader – Liberal

The politicians in question all have an interest in copyright law, either through being Minister, being part of the shadow cabinet, or personally (Charlie Angus is a musician). These are the people who are going to be involved in the parliamentary debate when the Conservative Government submits the new copyright law. As I’ve said, I’m going to be documenting this entire thing, as our political representatives need to be informed of what is going on.

Regards

Wayne Borean

Friday April 23, 2010

Here’s the letter:

I’m exceptionally concerned about many of the articles being written about copyright law, and the changes that have been suggested by many writers. My main concern is that many of these people appear to have an agenda that is being driven by their clients, and that they are not disclosing these clients. For example I do recording work for a couple of small artists. I have disclosed this in my articles. However several writers who are legal professionals have written articles under their own names, which quite possibly are being influenced by their professional work. This is not to say that the influence is in any way wrong, but rather that if there is a connection, it should be disclosed, even if the writing is of a personal nature, so that the reader can consider that connection when evaluating the article.

As a result I’ve written an article calling on those who I know of, who have been heavily involved in Canadian Copyright Issues, to state their affiliation. Again, there’s nothing wrong with having an interest based on your work. My work is why I am so interested. However I think that disclosure is important, and I’m calling on everyone who has written about the issue to make this disclosure.

In the article I have listed people who I know of who’ve written on the issue. I have no doubt that there are many others that I have missed. Please feel free to make suggestions. Some of the people who I’ve left off, like Corey Doctorow, have made their affiliation clear (also note that Corey isn’t a lawyer, his interest in copyright is like mine, practical). If you think I should add him, or anyone else, please let me know.

You can read the article here:

Regards

Wayne Borean aka The Mad Hatter
Writer, Musician, Recording Engineer
http://madhatter.ca

Microsoft Windows – Disaster Movie At Eleven!

My friend and sometime sparring partner, Goblin, has a good article on the latest disaster to hit Microsoft Windows titled ‘Windows under attack on two fronts? Even more problems ahead?‘, in which he covers the issues with his usual verve. Me, I’m going to go at it from a different direction.

A while back I told lawyer Barry Sookman that the smartest thing his law practise could do would be to dump Windows. I explained in technical terms why he should do so, and he didn’t understand. This is not a criticism of Barry. Barry’s a lawyer, not a Geek. He doesn’t have the technical background to understand the issues. In this case, I’m the one deserving of the criticism, I knew that Barry wasn’t a Geek, and should have tried to explain to him in terms that he would understand. So let’s take a try at doing that, focusing on the economic issues.

Assume an office with a staff of one hundred computer users, using Microsoft Windows, and Microsoft Office. A minimum of three servers will be needed, one for mail, one for file and printer service, and an SQL server for accounting. This is a first time setup.

Computer Workstation including keyboard, mouse, operating system, productivity suite, etc. $1100.00 with Windows 7 Professional, and Microsoft Office Professional 2007, and a two year anti-virus subscription included. But wait – we’ve only talked about workstations, what about the servers?

100 Workstations at $1100.00 each – $110,000.00

File and Print Server – $5700.00

SQL (Accounting) Server – $6900.00

Exchange (Mail) Server – $10080.00

Battery Backup Power Supply (for servers) – $1000.00

Total Cost – $133,680.00

Without discounts the total using the Microsoft solution would be $133,680.00. This is a lot of cash, and no doubt you’d be able to negotiate some sort of discount (if you couldn’t with one vendor, another would be glad to get your business).

What happens if instead of Windows 7 we install a free as in beer version of Linux with either Open Office or KOffice? The price drops to $570.00, which is a $530.00 saving per computer, or a $53,000.00 saving for the entire company. And then there’s the servers. Because of the way that Windows works you need three. With Linux you only need one. Again, we’ll go with the free as in beer version, and your server will cost you about $2,000.00. Let’s total that up:

100 Workstations at $530.00 each – $53,000.00

File, Print, SQL, Mail, and Web Server – $2,000.00

Battery Backup Power Supply (for server) – $1000.00

Total Cost – $56,000.00

Total Saving – $77,680.00

That’s a lot of cash. Oh, you are going to need to hire a geek to install everything, but you were going to have to do that anyway. It might take him a bit longer, and assuming that he charges $100.00 per hour, you could afford to have him bill an extra 775 hours before you’d be loosing money. 775 hours. That’s nearly half a year assuming 40 hour weeks…

And it actually gets worse. I assumed that you could get by with the cheapest possible servers, and with one hundred users, that would be pretty unlikely. The hardware costs for those three Windows servers probably should be about $3000.00 per server higher, and that assumes that you can get by with only three servers – depending upon your operation you might need two or three times as many, and additional Backup Power Supplies. The hardware cost for the single Linux server should probably be about $10,000.00 which is still far less expensive.

The point of course is that spending money on a Windows solution is an inefficient use of funds. Do you want to be the person reporting to your board of directors that you’ve wasted that much money?

Wayne Borean

Thursday April 22, 2010

This Ain't No Popularity Contest – It's Politics

When I wrote ‘A Call For Disclosure – Who Do The Professionals Represent And Why Are They Hiding The Connection?‘ I knew that I was going to annoy some people. Make that a lot of people. It’s really curious how people will complain that not enough people are politically active, and then scream that democracy is threatened when people do get politically active, and don’t agree with the screamer. SOCAN, the AMA, and several other organizations asked their members to take part in the copyright consultation – but for some reason they don’t think that anyone else should have taken part, which is why Richard Owens was whining.

Yes, my article was a hatchet job. The article I was responding to was a hatchet job, and sometimes like requires like.

What Richard Owens didn’t know when he wrote his article, was that I’ve been planning this article since January. I knew that sooner or later someone would try to come up with a reason to try to ignore the Canadian Copyright Consultation. I was even fairly sure of the form the opposition would take. It was obvious that this coming. It was nicely foreshadowed by Doctor Mihaly Ficsor’s articles that Barry Sookman published. In fact I had considered a preemptive strike, but I decided to wait, because I don’t need a reputation for paranoia. And I’ve been playing chess for over forty years, and I’ve learned that it’s so much easier to win, if you can convince the target that putting their head in the noose is in their best interest. I wasn’t sure who would take the bait, but Richard Owens volunteered. Thank you Richard.

In my opinion Richard is in a Conflict of Interest situation. He didn’t disclose in his article who he was working for. He may claim that his article was his personal opinion, but it reads like it was written by and/or for the MPAA and the RIAA, and in fact I have good reason to believe that he is working for them, or for one of their member companies. There is nothing wrong with representing your clients. What is wrong is not declaring those clients, when the client’s interests are at variance with the interests of the Canadian public.

John Enser of the 1709 Copyright Blog has made a good point. In some cases a non-disclosure agreement may be in place, which may prevent the lawyer from stating who he or she is working for. I suggest that if the lawyer is not able to disclose who their client is, that silence is the honest option.

Ben Challis was a bit upset with me. What Ben didn’t know when he wrote his response at the 1709 Copyright Blog is that the people who I named were picked carefully. Michael Geist was also a bit upset with me, again Michael was picked deliberately. Remember. I’m a chess player. Distraction is an important part of a chess game, and both Ben and Michael were part of the distraction. Jeremy Philips was a good sport about it, thanks for the polite response Jeremy.

The real targets of the article were Richard Owens, Barry Sookman, and James Gannon. Curiously while almost everyone else responded, some more politely than others, none of those three did. I know that two of them were in their office today, and since my emails were sent to their work email addresses, they received them, and decided to ignore them. Or possibly they are discussing their response with their principles. That’s up to them – Barry has my mobile number if he wants to talk, and all three have my email address, and they know where my website is. What they decide to do is up to them.

In Chess terms we are in the mid game, the most exciting part of the game. I wonder what their next moves will be?

Wayne Borean

Wednesday April 21, 2010

A Call For Disclosure – Who Do The Professionals Represent And Why Are They Hiding The Connection?

As a writer and musician I’ve always been interested in copyright. It’s part and parcel of what I do. However until last summer I wasn’t involved in the discussion of where copyright in Canada should go. In fact you can blame my current high level of interest in copyright law on TorrentFreak.

On August 12, 2009, TorrentFreak published an article titled Prevent Canada from Becoming a Copyright Police State. I don’t remember how I found the article – it was linked to from a good many places. I do know that it got me thinking, and as usual, when I think about something, I research it. The end result was that I was one of the people who filed a submission with my opinions of where copyright law should go. Part of the responsibility of a citizen is to make his or her views known to the government, and I fulfilled my responsibility.

Now we’ve got a lawyer named Richard Owens who thinks my opinion doesn’t matter because I came to the consultation through TorrentFreak.

OK Richard – I’m calling you on this. I don’t think your opinion matters, because I believe you are representing an organization who has a vested interest in copyright law, and YOU HAVE NOT DISCLOSED THIS. I invite you, and the other professionals listed below to swear an affidavit stating who you are representing. If you do not do this, the only conclusion I can draw is that you are ashamed to declare your allegiance, and I will so write to the minister, and I will do that same for all of the others on this list:

Richard Owens

Michael Geist

Barry Sookman

Sam Trosow

Howard Knopf

Ben Sheffner

Wouter Schilpzand

Hugo Cox

Amanda Harcourt

Ben Challis

John Enser

John Davidson-Kelly

Tom Harding

Jeremy Phillips

John Dozier

James Gannon

Feel free to scan and upload PDF copies of your affidavits in the comments.

Wayne Borean

Tuesday April 20, 2010