• U.S. anti-ACTA White House Petition: sign it
• Canada - Petition: sign it
• Canada - Take 1 minute to send a letter contesting Bill C-11: here 
• Ireland - anti-SOPAIreland Petition: sign it
• Poland - ACTA Referendum: here
• Global anti-ACTA Petition: sign it

• Pan-European Map of anti-ACTA protests: here
• Denmark 
• Netherlands (Amsterdam)
• Czech Republic (Prague)
• England (London)
• England (Nottingham)
• Ireland
• France
• Scotland (Glasgow)
• Germany (Berlin)
• Germany (Bremerhaven)
• Germany (Hanover)
• Germany (Hamburg)
• Germany (Mainz)
• Germany (Minden)
• Germany (Munich)
• Germany (Trier)
• Germany (Regensburg)
• Germany (Stuttgart)
• Sweden (Stockholm)
• Sweden (Helsingborg)
• Sweden (Goteborg)
• Poland (Gdansk)
• Poland (Wroclaw)
• Poland (Katowice)
• Poland (Krakow)
• Poland (Bialystok)
• Poland (Szczecin)
• Poland (Lodz)
• Poland (Bydgoszcz)
• Italy (Porto Vecchio)
• Portugal (online)
• Malta (Valletta)
• Slovenia (Ljubljana)
• Bulgaria (Sofia)
• Romania (Bucharest)
• Romania (Bucharest)
• Romania (Cluj)
• Romania (Timisoara)
• Latvia (Riga)
• Austria

The Canadian governing party - the Conservatives - are planning an omnibus crime bill that would include surveillance legislation. While the bill is not yet tabled, opposition to this bill is mounting.

• The ease by which Canadians’ Internet service providers, social networks, and even their handsets and cars will be turned into tools to spy on their activities further to production and preservation orders in former Bill C‐51 – a form of spying that is bound to have serious chilling effects on online activity and communications, implicating fundamental rights and freedoms;
• The minimal and inadequate amount of external oversight in place to ensure that the powers allotted in these bills are not abused;
• Clause 16 of former Bill C‐52, which will allow law enforcement to force identification of anonymous online Internet users, even where there is no reason to suspect the information will be useful to any investigation and without adequate court oversight; and
• The manner in which former Bill C‐52 paves the way to categorical secrecy orders that will further obscure how the sweeping powers granted in it are used and that are reminiscent of elements of the USA PATRIOT Act that were found unconstitutional.

Andrea Slane, University of Ontario Institute of Technology, Faculty of Social Science & Humanities Andrew Clement, University of Toronto, Faculty of Information British Columbia Freedom of Information and Privacy Association (BCFIPA) Canadian Association of University Teachers (CAUT) Canadian Civil Liberties Association (CCLA) Canadian Federation of Students (CFS) Christopher Parsons, University of Victoria, Department of Political Science Civil Liberties Association – National Capitol Region (CLA–NCR) Colin Bennett, University of Victoria, Department of Political Science David Lyon, FRSC, Queen’s University, Surveillance Studies Centre Ian Kerr, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law International Civil Liberties Monitoring Group (ICLMG) Kate Milberry, University of Toronto, Faculty of Information Leslie Shade, Concordia University, Department of Communications Studies Lisa Austin, University of Toronto, Faculty of Law Michael Geist, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law Michael Markwick, Simon Fraser University, School of Communications OpenMedia.ca Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC) Samuelson‐Glushko Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) Sharon Polsky, President, AMINACorp.ca; National Chair, Canadian Association of Professional Access & Privacy Administrators (CAPAPA) Teresa Scassa, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law Valerie Steeves, University of Ottawa, Department of Criminology

Previously, we reported on Anonymous exposing corruption by posting nearly 5GB of Brazilian government content to BitTorrent filesharing website, ThePirateBay. Now, there is an interesting new effort - translating the contents of the data leak to English.

Some interesting things coming out of Australia this week. It seems that AFACT (Australian Federation Against Copyright Theft) is attempting to pressure ISPs into implementing a three strikes law for Australian internet users. That has the Australian Pirate Party crying foul.

One local ISP to receive the letter was Exetel, which in comparison with other ISPs, already has a number of provisions in its agreement with its customers that are favourable to content owners. For example, the ISP has committed to forwarding any copyright infringement notices received to customers. If three or more such notices are received, or if Exetel “reasonably suspects” that a customer is infringing copyright, and the customer fails to provide a valid defence for their activity, Exetel reserves the right to disconnect customers’ connections.

The AntiSec movement mayhem continues as the latest document dump is targeting the Democrats of Orange Country.

Election fraud and accusations of rigged voting might be as old as US election systems themselves, but some may wonder, if a hacker can gain access to the election voting system, how secure are elections anyway?

So, this is a little ironic. Here is inside details of florida voting systems. Now.. who still believes voting isn't rigged? If the United States Government can't even keep their ballot systems secure, why trust them at all? FAIL!

It'll be May 2nd when Canadians head to the polls, and the positions on copyright can be rather muddied at times. That makes the CCA posting on political parties so interesting. Canadian political parties were asked a series of questions related to the arts and some of this ground covers copyright.

Bad trade deals are bad for Canadians. A Green Government will renegotiate NAFTA and FTAA, as well as other agreements currently under negotiation (e.g. Canadian-EU Trade Agreement (CETA)). Any Chapter 11-type Investor-State provision that allow foreign companies to sue our government and its agencies (e.g. CRTC) will be removed.

If Bill C-32 is presented before Parliament again in its current form, the Bloc will try to better balance the bill by proposing amendments during the committee's study.

Recent studies have shown that Canada’s out-of-date Copyright act translates into major economic loss (up to 965 million dollars lost last year due to piracy, according to an Ipsos/ Oxford economics study) for Canadian creators all across the country; the Liberal Party will thus start working on presenting a modernised copyright act as soon as we form government. Bill C-32, the latest Conservative attempt to modernise copyright, was unbalanced and unfair; a Liberal government will work with all stakeholders to ensure creators rights and their sources of revenues are protected under the Copyright act. Digital technology offers many new opportunities, but enjoying content without compensating its creators shouldn’t be among them. A new Liberal government will introduce technology neutral copyright legislation that balances the needs of creators and consumers and reflects the principle that our artists and musicians should be paid for their work. We will stand with Canadian creators as they navigate both the opportunities and challenges of the new digital society. During the debate on copyright legislation in the last Parliament, it was the Liberal Party that developed a practical solution to providing musicians with compensation through a new private copying compensation fund rather than a levy. A Liberal government will look to develop similarly innovative solutions to ensure that the Copyright Act protects creators’ existing and future rights and revenue streams in a digital age. Likewise, the Liberal party believes that any exception under fair dealings must be clearly defined with a clear and strict test for fair use so that creators are fairly compensated for their work.

Bottom line, it sounds like the Liberals are planning on also changing copyright laws so that they are more strict. While their track record (what we mentioned in our Liberal platform review) suggests that they want to increase exceptions, that seems to be the only highlight of their position as they sound like they are merely going along with what foreign corporations want copyright laws to be from the sounds of things. The NDP simply had this to say:

If elected, Jack Layton and the New Democrat team are committed to introducing legislation to modernize Canada’s copyright regime within 12 months of taking office.

The parties were then asked, "What types of amendments do you intend to put forward? " The Bloc's response:

Copyright law does not take into account the impact of new technologies, including the advent of the internet, and must be changed as quickly as possible. All work deserves proper compensation, so it is essential that artists and creators receive their dues, while also ensuring that consumers benefit from access to creative products. Illegal downloading is detrimental to artists, who receive no fair compensation for their works, while internet service providers are able to benefit financially from their labour. Introduced in June 2010 by the Conservatives, Bill C-32 fails to make ISPs responsible and is satisfied with attacking the consumers who pay ISPs for internet access.

This appears to be repeating what they said earlier in their platform about making ISPs liable for copyright infringement. It also seems to reaffirm that they are merely going to toe the viewpoint of foreign multi-national corporations. The Green parties response was rather surprising:

The Green Party believes that Bill C-32 needs more work and that the educational exceptions in particular disrespect creators and threatens their livelihoods and businesses. The Green Party of Canada is committed to working with the CCA and all the relevant stakeholders to modernize our outdated copyright system.

I don't understand exactly how the educational exceptions in Bill C-32 disrespected creators. It locked down art whenever there was a DRM present, thus restricting what educators could do with material for educational purposes. I personally find this response puzzling. The NDP was more open to fair dealing:

We would begin by addressing issues including private copying, fair dealing, and the regime governing statutory damages, among others.

The next question was this: "Which elements of Bill C-32 will your party keep, and which elements of the bill will your party remove or change in a new bill to modernize the Copyright Act?" The Bloc responded:

The Bloc Québécois will ensure that the new bill is fair to both creators and consumers. This balance must be achieved, most notably through: an upgraded system for private copying, applying to mp3 players and other digital music players; reasonable royalties to artists for redistribution of their works; the abolition of the education exemption and fair recognition of the resale rights of visual artists.

They went on to re-iterate that they want to make ISPs liable for copyright infringement. The Green Party had an interesting response:

The Green Party of Canada strongly supports artists' rights to guaranteed fair compensation through fair patent and copyright laws. At the same time, we consider the digital lock provision in Bill C-32 to be excessively restrictive in that it will not allow students and journalists to properly create and conduct research. We will work with the CCA and other stakeholders to sharpen the definition of "educational uses" to find the right balance to give researchers this ability in a manner consistent with a thriving information commons, fair dealing principles, and moral rights.

This seems to be similar to the Liberals position on the DRM exceptions that they are far too strict and, essentially, choke off certain kinds of innovation legally speaking. The NDP had a very specific response:

In reviewing Bill C-32, New Democrats would closely examine a number of key issues contained in the proposed legislation, including (but not limited to) ISP liability, Technological Protection Measures (TPMs, or so-called “digital locks”), statutory damages, private copying and reproduction for private purposes, broadcast mechanical licensing and fair dealing. In order to arrive at an equilibrium between the interests of rights-holders and those of consumers, New Democrats would likely begin developing new copyright laws, beginning by consulting widely with stakeholder groups with the aim of creating a legislation that is – unlike C-32 – truly technology-neutral, balanced and flexible enough to ensure its adaptability to new platforms and technologies in the years to come. We would also determine definitively Canada’s obligations as a signatory to various international treaties governing copyright and intellectual property.

While they are glossing over a lot of subjects, they are, at least, recognizing that these issues do matter to them. If you would like to see the full responses and questions in these and other topics, you can check out the CCA website. So, if ACTRA is hoping to find a political party that explicitly says they'll support a three strikes law, well, it's clear that this policy isn't exactly on the minds of the political parties judging by these responses. The closest mention of three strikes is the mention of CETA. That was the Green party and they explicitly said that such an agreement was a bad idea. What is noticeable in these responses is how some parties (namely the Liberals and the Bloc) seem to be more warm to the idea of a more DMCA-style approach to copyright. The Bloc went further by saying that ISPs should be liable for copyright infringement. While I personally fully disagree with this policy because ISPs are used for way more than accessing music, they seem to have been very consistent on this position. The NDP appear to at least recognize the complexities of copyright the most with mentioning not just TPMs and fair dealing, but statutory damages and ISP liability as well. Overall, these are very interesting comments given that sometimes, the party platforms were vague at times. Some of these responses really did clarify the party positions on these issues. I think that the NDP further clarified their positions the most while the Bloc merely reaffirmed their positions. The other parties were somewhere in between reaffirming their positions and clarifying the points they made in their platform. Does these positions change your vote? Which party do you think had the position that reflects your stance on copyright the most? Are all of the issues that are of concern to you being addressed so far in this election? Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]>

It'll be May 2nd when Canadians head to the polls, and the positions on copyright can be rather muddied at times. That makes the CCA posting on political parties so interesting. Canadian political parties were asked a series of questions related to the arts and some of this ground covers copyright.

Recently, ZeroPaid's own Jared Moya noted that ACTRA was asking Canadians to vote for candidates who would support a three strikes law. The question being raised here is which party best suits your position if you are Canadian. We've already reviewed the platforms of the Conservative, Bloc, Liberal, Green and Pirate party platforms. Well, if reading the platforms weren't enough for you, the Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA) sent a series of questions to the Bloc, Conservative, Green, Liberal and NDP parties with regards to the arts in Canada. There responses might prove quite interesting for some voters to say the least. As it seems to be par for the course, the Conservative party did not answer any questions, so that leaves the Liberal, NDP, Bloc and Green parties. We've read through the comments and have put together some notes. The parties were asked, "How do you intend to protect culture in international trade negotiations?" The Green party had an interesting response, saying:

Bad trade deals are bad for Canadians. A Green Government will renegotiate NAFTA and FTAA, as well as other agreements currently under negotiation (e.g. Canadian-EU Trade Agreement (CETA)). Any Chapter 11-type Investor-State provision that allow foreign companies to sue our government and its agencies (e.g. CRTC) will be removed.

Copyright was then asked. The question specifically was "Precisely when does your party intend to present amendments to modernize the Copyright Act?" The Bloc responded with the following:

If Bill C-32 is presented before Parliament again in its current form, the Bloc will try to better balance the bill by proposing amendments during the committee's study.

While this response specifically seems rather vague, judging by our platform review, chances are, they mean that they are going to restrict copyright more to the liking of foreign multinational companies (re: DMCA-style copyright law) The Liberals response was particularly eye-opening:

Recent studies have shown that Canada’s out-of-date Copyright act translates into major economic loss (up to 965 million dollars lost last year due to piracy, according to an Ipsos/ Oxford economics study) for Canadian creators all across the country; the Liberal Party will thus start working on presenting a modernised copyright act as soon as we form government. Bill C-32, the latest Conservative attempt to modernise copyright, was unbalanced and unfair; a Liberal government will work with all stakeholders to ensure creators rights and their sources of revenues are protected under the Copyright act. Digital technology offers many new opportunities, but enjoying content without compensating its creators shouldn’t be among them. A new Liberal government will introduce technology neutral copyright legislation that balances the needs of creators and consumers and reflects the principle that our artists and musicians should be paid for their work. We will stand with Canadian creators as they navigate both the opportunities and challenges of the new digital society. During the debate on copyright legislation in the last Parliament, it was the Liberal Party that developed a practical solution to providing musicians with compensation through a new private copying compensation fund rather than a levy. A Liberal government will look to develop similarly innovative solutions to ensure that the Copyright Act protects creators’ existing and future rights and revenue streams in a digital age. Likewise, the Liberal party believes that any exception under fair dealings must be clearly defined with a clear and strict test for fair use so that creators are fairly compensated for their work.

Bottom line, it sounds like the Liberals are planning on also changing copyright laws so that they are more strict. While their track record (what we mentioned in our Liberal platform review) suggests that they want to increase exceptions, that seems to be the only highlight of their position as they sound like they are merely going along with what foreign corporations want copyright laws to be from the sounds of things. The NDP simply had this to say:

If elected, Jack Layton and the New Democrat team are committed to introducing legislation to modernize Canada’s copyright regime within 12 months of taking office.

The parties were then asked, "What types of amendments do you intend to put forward? " The Bloc's response:

Copyright law does not take into account the impact of new technologies, including the advent of the internet, and must be changed as quickly as possible. All work deserves proper compensation, so it is essential that artists and creators receive their dues, while also ensuring that consumers benefit from access to creative products. Illegal downloading is detrimental to artists, who receive no fair compensation for their works, while internet service providers are able to benefit financially from their labour. Introduced in June 2010 by the Conservatives, Bill C-32 fails to make ISPs responsible and is satisfied with attacking the consumers who pay ISPs for internet access.

This appears to be repeating what they said earlier in their platform about making ISPs liable for copyright infringement. It also seems to reaffirm that they are merely going to toe the viewpoint of foreign multi-national corporations. The Green parties response was rather surprising:

The Green Party believes that Bill C-32 needs more work and that the educational exceptions in particular disrespect creators and threatens their livelihoods and businesses. The Green Party of Canada is committed to working with the CCA and all the relevant stakeholders to modernize our outdated copyright system.

I don't understand exactly how the educational exceptions in Bill C-32 disrespected creators. It locked down art whenever there was a DRM present, thus restricting what educators could do with material for educational purposes. I personally find this response puzzling. The NDP was more open to fair dealing:

We would begin by addressing issues including private copying, fair dealing, and the regime governing statutory damages, among others.

The next question was this: "Which elements of Bill C-32 will your party keep, and which elements of the bill will your party remove or change in a new bill to modernize the Copyright Act?" The Bloc responded:

The Bloc Québécois will ensure that the new bill is fair to both creators and consumers. This balance must be achieved, most notably through: an upgraded system for private copying, applying to mp3 players and other digital music players; reasonable royalties to artists for redistribution of their works; the abolition of the education exemption and fair recognition of the resale rights of visual artists.

They went on to re-iterate that they want to make ISPs liable for copyright infringement. The Green Party had an interesting response:

The Green Party of Canada strongly supports artists' rights to guaranteed fair compensation through fair patent and copyright laws. At the same time, we consider the digital lock provision in Bill C-32 to be excessively restrictive in that it will not allow students and journalists to properly create and conduct research. We will work with the CCA and other stakeholders to sharpen the definition of "educational uses" to find the right balance to give researchers this ability in a manner consistent with a thriving information commons, fair dealing principles, and moral rights.

This seems to be similar to the Liberals position on the DRM exceptions that they are far too strict and, essentially, choke off certain kinds of innovation legally speaking. The NDP had a very specific response:

In reviewing Bill C-32, New Democrats would closely examine a number of key issues contained in the proposed legislation, including (but not limited to) ISP liability, Technological Protection Measures (TPMs, or so-called “digital locks”), statutory damages, private copying and reproduction for private purposes, broadcast mechanical licensing and fair dealing. In order to arrive at an equilibrium between the interests of rights-holders and those of consumers, New Democrats would likely begin developing new copyright laws, beginning by consulting widely with stakeholder groups with the aim of creating a legislation that is – unlike C-32 – truly technology-neutral, balanced and flexible enough to ensure its adaptability to new platforms and technologies in the years to come. We would also determine definitively Canada’s obligations as a signatory to various international treaties governing copyright and intellectual property.

While they are glossing over a lot of subjects, they are, at least, recognizing that these issues do matter to them. If you would like to see the full responses and questions in these and other topics, you can check out the CCA website. So, if ACTRA is hoping to find a political party that explicitly says they'll support a three strikes law, well, it's clear that this policy isn't exactly on the minds of the political parties judging by these responses. The closest mention of three strikes is the mention of CETA. That was the Green party and they explicitly said that such an agreement was a bad idea. What is noticeable in these responses is how some parties (namely the Liberals and the Bloc) seem to be more warm to the idea of a more DMCA-style approach to copyright. The Bloc went further by saying that ISPs should be liable for copyright infringement. While I personally fully disagree with this policy because ISPs are used for way more than accessing music, they seem to have been very consistent on this position. The NDP appear to at least recognize the complexities of copyright the most with mentioning not just TPMs and fair dealing, but statutory damages and ISP liability as well. Overall, these are very interesting comments given that sometimes, the party platforms were vague at times. Some of these responses really did clarify the party positions on these issues. I think that the NDP further clarified their positions the most while the Bloc merely reaffirmed their positions. The other parties were somewhere in between reaffirming their positions and clarifying the points they made in their platform. Does these positions change your vote? Which party do you think had the position that reflects your stance on copyright the most? Are all of the issues that are of concern to you being addressed so far in this election? Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93234/canadian-political-parties-clarify-their-positions-on-copyright/feed/ 1 http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93184/pirate-party-candidate-to-run-for-office-in-florida/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93184/pirate-party-candidate-to-run-for-office-in-florida/#comments Thu, 21 Apr 2011 07:20:38 +0000 Drew Wilson http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=93184

America is often seen as a land of the two party system, but other parties to exist in the US. The Florida Pirate Party is currently in the process of being able to run candidates in the Sunshine state.

You've got to admit, it certainly takes courage to be a candidate for a political party hoping to get a seat anywhere - especially when you belong to neither the Democrat or Republican parties. Still, that is exactly what the Florida Pirate Party is currently doing. According to the Florida Pirate Party website, Ryan Moffitt, Chairman of the Pirate Party of Florida has begun his campaign to become the Florida state House Representative from District 86. "Once the paperwork has been certified by the Division of Elections," Moffitt said, "I will be cleared to gather donations, and begin gathering voter petitions to get a spot on the ballot in the 2012 general election." "We have a long road ahead of us on this one. I need 518 Florida voter’s signatures to get on the ballot. I simply can’t do this alone. Facing an incumbent representative of the two party system is no easy task, but with a grass-roots base, and sheer strength of will, I genuinely believe we can make a stand." There is certainly a lot of issues that can be raised in the US. Copyright laws such as the DMCA and warrantless wiretapping are two issues that would suit the Pirate Party well even though such policies are from a different branch of government. But one needs to start somewhere. Moffitt added, "Let this be the beginning of the end of the monopolist copyright industry. Let this be the beginning of the end of back room deals and secret operations. Let this be the beginning of the end of warrantless wiretapping and censorship." "With your help, we can bring the state of Florida into the new digital age, in a free and open manner run by the people, and for the people. We can end the old ideals, and the old guard who believe communication and creation should stay in the domain of ivory towers, marble halls or glass office buildings. The future belongs to us, the people." I'm sure he's got a lot of work ahead of him at this stage. Breaking a two party system would certainly be no easy task. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]>

America is often seen as a land of the two party system, but other parties to exist in the US. The Florida Pirate Party is currently in the process of being able to run candidates in the Sunshine state.

You've got to admit, it certainly takes courage to be a candidate for a political party hoping to get a seat anywhere - especially when you belong to neither the Democrat or Republican parties. Still, that is exactly what the Florida Pirate Party is currently doing. According to the Florida Pirate Party website, Ryan Moffitt, Chairman of the Pirate Party of Florida has begun his campaign to become the Florida state House Representative from District 86. "Once the paperwork has been certified by the Division of Elections," Moffitt said, "I will be cleared to gather donations, and begin gathering voter petitions to get a spot on the ballot in the 2012 general election." "We have a long road ahead of us on this one. I need 518 Florida voter’s signatures to get on the ballot. I simply can’t do this alone. Facing an incumbent representative of the two party system is no easy task, but with a grass-roots base, and sheer strength of will, I genuinely believe we can make a stand." There is certainly a lot of issues that can be raised in the US. Copyright laws such as the DMCA and warrantless wiretapping are two issues that would suit the Pirate Party well even though such policies are from a different branch of government. But one needs to start somewhere. Moffitt added, "Let this be the beginning of the end of the monopolist copyright industry. Let this be the beginning of the end of back room deals and secret operations. Let this be the beginning of the end of warrantless wiretapping and censorship." "With your help, we can bring the state of Florida into the new digital age, in a free and open manner run by the people, and for the people. We can end the old ideals, and the old guard who believe communication and creation should stay in the domain of ivory towers, marble halls or glass office buildings. The future belongs to us, the people." I'm sure he's got a lot of work ahead of him at this stage. Breaking a two party system would certainly be no easy task. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93184/pirate-party-candidate-to-run-for-office-in-florida/feed/ 2 http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93172/pirate-party-to-offer-vpn-to-protect-canadians-from-conservative-majority/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93172/pirate-party-to-offer-vpn-to-protect-canadians-from-conservative-majority/#comments Wed, 20 Apr 2011 08:33:48 +0000 Drew Wilson http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=93172

It's a service often used for dissidents in repressive regimes, but if a Conservative majority were to happen in the Canadian elections, the Pirate Party of Canada says they'll be there to help. A VPN service can help annonymize internet activity and for those fearful of a Conservative majority, it might very well be at least a bit of comforting news.

Conservative majority. If you are Canadian, you've more than likely heard this concept in the past few weeks. Some say that it'll be a dark day in Canada should the Conservatives win a majority, Is this such a frightening concept? To some, it is. In fact, for some, it's so frightening, it warrants an anonymous online solution should the Conservatives win a majority of seats in parliament. The pirate party explains the possible situation:

If given a majority government, the Conservatives are promising to ram through a bill that would provide unprecedented systematic interception and monitoring of Canadians’ personal communications. In short, Canada will soon join the growing list of countries subject to invasion of privacy and internet censorship. Therefore, the Pirate Party is preparing to extend the services presently offered to residents of repressive regimes to protect the people affected by the aspiring dictator right here at home.

The fact that some are preparing for the worse like this certainly does provide some reason to be concerned. Could a Conservative majority bring forth a repressive era in Canada so strict, that services often reserved for third world dictatorships may now need to be deployed in Canada? One things for sure, a Conservative majority is uncharted territory for this generation. “We will provide VPN service to Canadians at a rate of $10 / 200GB. For every paid account we open, we will also provide a free VPN account to a citizen of a nation with censored internet,” said party leader Mikkel Paulson today. “This allows us to simultaneously provide protection to Canadians and expand our humanitarian support abroad. We won’t keep logs of the activity, although we will of course cooperate with law enforcement in the event of abuse of our services.” The Pirate Party said that those interested in the service can e-mail them at vpn@pirateparty.ca. Whether or not it ever gets to that point remains to be seen, but if it well and truly does get to this point, it's nice to know that the Pirate Party of Canada is working to assist Canadians concerned about their communications under such a political event. Further reading: Pirate Party Press Release Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]>

It's a service often used for dissidents in repressive regimes, but if a Conservative majority were to happen in the Canadian elections, the Pirate Party of Canada says they'll be there to help. A VPN service can help annonymize internet activity and for those fearful of a Conservative majority, it might very well be at least a bit of comforting news.

Conservative majority. If you are Canadian, you've more than likely heard this concept in the past few weeks. Some say that it'll be a dark day in Canada should the Conservatives win a majority, Is this such a frightening concept? To some, it is. In fact, for some, it's so frightening, it warrants an anonymous online solution should the Conservatives win a majority of seats in parliament. The pirate party explains the possible situation:

If given a majority government, the Conservatives are promising to ram through a bill that would provide unprecedented systematic interception and monitoring of Canadians’ personal communications. In short, Canada will soon join the growing list of countries subject to invasion of privacy and internet censorship. Therefore, the Pirate Party is preparing to extend the services presently offered to residents of repressive regimes to protect the people affected by the aspiring dictator right here at home.

The fact that some are preparing for the worse like this certainly does provide some reason to be concerned. Could a Conservative majority bring forth a repressive era in Canada so strict, that services often reserved for third world dictatorships may now need to be deployed in Canada? One things for sure, a Conservative majority is uncharted territory for this generation. “We will provide VPN service to Canadians at a rate of $10 / 200GB. For every paid account we open, we will also provide a free VPN account to a citizen of a nation with censored internet,” said party leader Mikkel Paulson today. “This allows us to simultaneously provide protection to Canadians and expand our humanitarian support abroad. We won’t keep logs of the activity, although we will of course cooperate with law enforcement in the event of abuse of our services.” The Pirate Party said that those interested in the service can e-mail them at vpn@pirateparty.ca. Whether or not it ever gets to that point remains to be seen, but if it well and truly does get to this point, it's nice to know that the Pirate Party of Canada is working to assist Canadians concerned about their communications under such a political event. Further reading: Pirate Party Press Release Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93172/pirate-party-to-offer-vpn-to-protect-canadians-from-conservative-majority/feed/ 5 http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93166/canadas-election-is-the-ipod-tax-a-non-issue/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93166/canadas-election-is-the-ipod-tax-a-non-issue/#comments Tue, 19 Apr 2011 22:21:39 +0000 Drew Wilson http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=93166

It's been often discussed on mainstream broadcasters news programs like CBC and CTV. It's even taken centre stage in a Conservative attack ad against all of his opponents. The question is, has it really taken hold in the online world or has it become a dud?

For those who are interested in technology related issues, there are plenty of subjects that can grab a persons interest in this election. These issues can include the issue of copyright, privacy, lawful access, the spectrum auction, artists rights, ACTA, Creative Commons, fair dealing, the moralities of file-sharing lawsuits, CETA, the more recent TPP agreement, free software, open software, crown copyright, ISP and telecom competition, broadband access and even last mile internet access to name a few. That's what makes this push over the iPod tax issue so puzzling because it was actually one of the more minor issues that was brought up by the Conservative party. For the record, here is the attack ad in question as part of the more recent push to bring this issue to the fore-front: The video was posted on YouTube on April 11. As of April 19th, the video has received a measely 7,800 views. With statistics like that, it's hardly the vote grabbing and attention grabbing issue for young voters. So, what gives? The original debate, that is, the removable storage levy debate, was never the largest issue in the online world to begin with. Sure, it did gain some attention originally, but not exactly from the parties at the time it was being discussed. The issue was simply relegated to the confines of a few legal web pages where some lobbyists were arguing over whether or not the technology industry should be subsidizing a dying music industry policy every time there's a new advance in technology. Another interesting perspective is that if there's a new levy, then maybe file-sharing should be legalized because artists are already compensated whenever that music is put in to a hard drive, cell phone, etc. I think, at best, the issue received some mixed reviews. What I do think is interesting though, is that the issue surrounding an artists right to be paid is suspiciously absent in all of this. Through the many debates I've witnessed or read about this issue, that issue of how artists should be paid these days is magically gone in the shadow of the iPod Tax issue raised by the Conservatives. Another possible reason why this issue simply hasn't gained any momentum is the fact that the iPod simply isn't as trendy as it was a few years ago. Look at the iPod marketing between 2 and 7 years ago. There was a time when practically every contest geared toward a younger generation had an iPod as a prize. You had those famous ads of the silhouetted figure dancing around wearing or holding a white iPod. These days, people listen to their music on other MP3 players and cell phones. In short, the market is much more saturated with things that play MP3's than half a dozen years ago. Apple, to my knowledge, has focused more on their iPhone and iPad products these days which is more multi-purpose than a classif iPod shuffle. In short, it's possible that this is a non-issue because the iPod is a few tech generations old now. Having the iPod front and centre of an attack ad might not have as much bite as it would have years ago. A third possibility was the issue of timing. This ad was posted on April 11th. The question is, what are people who would be most receptive to an ad campaign like this doing at the time? For those who are familiar with school schedules, students are entering their final exams. So while the Conservative party was screaming about how younger voters shouldn't be voting for other parties, the targeted demographic was forehead deep in books either studying for final exams or putting the finishing touches on final projects. It's hard to get the younger vote when they are focused on school at the time. Sure, some will notice, but it's not exactly undivided attention either. A fourth possible reason is that people in the online community are generally more sceptical than those who get their news strictly from the newspaper and TV given the one-way vs. two way nature of those mediums. Some people will go to sources that they trust like Michael Geist, Russell McOrmond, Howard Knopf and here at ZeroPaid to get the facts checked when it comes to copyright and related issues. So what do some of these seasoned veterans think about the iPod tax? The credibility seems to be thrown in to question. Michael Geist commented as early as December on the issue saying that the Liberals have flatly stated they don't suppose such an initiative despite what the Conservatives said. Another point was the original motion to bring forth the levy was a tie vote. The chair of the committee, a Conservative, voted in favour of it, therefore passing the motion. The debate made it to the commons where the debate was focused on whether or not artists should be compensated for their work. The idea was to extend the levy, currently for blank media, to other forms of digital storage that can theoretically include an iPod. Again, the debate was very different back then. Today, there seems to be no mention of compensating artists now that these ads are flying out. Russel McOrmond points out that it was a Conservative that tabled the motion that started it all. McOrmond commented that the Conservative campaign website, ipodtax.ca, is "an embarrassingly inaccurate campaign website". In short, the iPod Tax campaign is known to have problems reflecting the facts correctly and accurately. Many people in the online world pick up very quickly when something is either wrong or misleading and often let the issue or campaign fall off in to the internet ether, never to be seen or heard from again. It's not just us that is proclaiming the issue a non-issue at this stage. Mark Blevis, a digital public affairs strategist, has reached a similar conclusion not just with the popularity of the video on YouTube, but with trends on Twitter as well. Blevis' analysis of Twitter:

Tweets about the iPod tax make up just slightly more than 3/10ths of 1% of all election related tweets for the period of March 26 through April 15 (1,178 of 369,844 Tweets). Even if we remove the April 12th spike of 70,315 tweets (more than 50% of which was debate related) as a statistical anomaly (most days hover between 10,000 and 15,000 tweets), iPod tax related tweets only gain 1/10th of 1%. In fact, the most tweets in one day on the iPod tax (338) barely edged out the Twitter “spanking” directed at @senatorjake (324) for his “attack dogs” tweet.

Blevis also noted that the Stop the iPod Tax campaign managed to get a total of 405 fans on Facebook which contained a "very mixed debate" taking place. Blevis concluded, "I expected a different result. It seemed logical that reminding Canadians a vote for the Liberals would mean a vote to pay an additional $75 on each purchase of an iPod would send people to the web with torches and pitchforks (whether or not the actual claim is true). Despite all the media attention, and the slick ads, it just doesn’t seem to land." So, is this just a case of voter apathy and the demographic simply never getting engaged in politics? I don't think so. I think this is simply a campaign that missed the mark on virtually all counts. The timing was wrong, the facts weren't presented accurately, and it was never the single largest debate to be had to begin with. For people engaged in the online world, that can be a concoction for disaster for anything, let alone a Canadian campaign. The question is, what will gain interest in the younger demographics who can vote? I would put money on a well-funded campaign over two weeks that focused on the following: 1. Why is the government is engaging in secret trade agreements that would allow border security to seize your laptop, cell phone or MP3 player at the border? 2. Will the government enact a three strikes law on internet users that could disconnect internet users, even innocent users, from the internet without court oversight? 3. Why is the government making you pay for your legally paid for material more than once with legal restrictions on DRM or why can't I legally format or time-shift because of the presence of DRM? 4. Why is the government demanding that all of our online conversations (whether private or not) be wire-tapped without a court order? 5. Will the government allow record labels to sue average people for millions of dollars for non-commercial infringement as seen in the US? I bet that if one were to put forth a campaign that dealt with these five points, it'll gain more momentum than the iPod tax issue. I think it's a tragedy that most political parties aren't pushing forward on these issues outside of one-on-one conversations and vague references on their platforms. I mean, talk about lost opportunities to engage with voters here. What do you think? Is the iPod tax not that big of an issue? Could there be other issues that would more likely get your attention? Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]>

It's been often discussed on mainstream broadcasters news programs like CBC and CTV. It's even taken centre stage in a Conservative attack ad against all of his opponents. The question is, has it really taken hold in the online world or has it become a dud?

For those who are interested in technology related issues, there are plenty of subjects that can grab a persons interest in this election. These issues can include the issue of copyright, privacy, lawful access, the spectrum auction, artists rights, ACTA, Creative Commons, fair dealing, the moralities of file-sharing lawsuits, CETA, the more recent TPP agreement, free software, open software, crown copyright, ISP and telecom competition, broadband access and even last mile internet access to name a few. That's what makes this push over the iPod tax issue so puzzling because it was actually one of the more minor issues that was brought up by the Conservative party. For the record, here is the attack ad in question as part of the more recent push to bring this issue to the fore-front: The video was posted on YouTube on April 11. As of April 19th, the video has received a measely 7,800 views. With statistics like that, it's hardly the vote grabbing and attention grabbing issue for young voters. So, what gives? The original debate, that is, the removable storage levy debate, was never the largest issue in the online world to begin with. Sure, it did gain some attention originally, but not exactly from the parties at the time it was being discussed. The issue was simply relegated to the confines of a few legal web pages where some lobbyists were arguing over whether or not the technology industry should be subsidizing a dying music industry policy every time there's a new advance in technology. Another interesting perspective is that if there's a new levy, then maybe file-sharing should be legalized because artists are already compensated whenever that music is put in to a hard drive, cell phone, etc. I think, at best, the issue received some mixed reviews. What I do think is interesting though, is that the issue surrounding an artists right to be paid is suspiciously absent in all of this. Through the many debates I've witnessed or read about this issue, that issue of how artists should be paid these days is magically gone in the shadow of the iPod Tax issue raised by the Conservatives. Another possible reason why this issue simply hasn't gained any momentum is the fact that the iPod simply isn't as trendy as it was a few years ago. Look at the iPod marketing between 2 and 7 years ago. There was a time when practically every contest geared toward a younger generation had an iPod as a prize. You had those famous ads of the silhouetted figure dancing around wearing or holding a white iPod. These days, people listen to their music on other MP3 players and cell phones. In short, the market is much more saturated with things that play MP3's than half a dozen years ago. Apple, to my knowledge, has focused more on their iPhone and iPad products these days which is more multi-purpose than a classif iPod shuffle. In short, it's possible that this is a non-issue because the iPod is a few tech generations old now. Having the iPod front and centre of an attack ad might not have as much bite as it would have years ago. A third possibility was the issue of timing. This ad was posted on April 11th. The question is, what are people who would be most receptive to an ad campaign like this doing at the time? For those who are familiar with school schedules, students are entering their final exams. So while the Conservative party was screaming about how younger voters shouldn't be voting for other parties, the targeted demographic was forehead deep in books either studying for final exams or putting the finishing touches on final projects. It's hard to get the younger vote when they are focused on school at the time. Sure, some will notice, but it's not exactly undivided attention either. A fourth possible reason is that people in the online community are generally more sceptical than those who get their news strictly from the newspaper and TV given the one-way vs. two way nature of those mediums. Some people will go to sources that they trust like Michael Geist, Russell McOrmond, Howard Knopf and here at ZeroPaid to get the facts checked when it comes to copyright and related issues. So what do some of these seasoned veterans think about the iPod tax? The credibility seems to be thrown in to question. Michael Geist commented as early as December on the issue saying that the Liberals have flatly stated they don't suppose such an initiative despite what the Conservatives said. Another point was the original motion to bring forth the levy was a tie vote. The chair of the committee, a Conservative, voted in favour of it, therefore passing the motion. The debate made it to the commons where the debate was focused on whether or not artists should be compensated for their work. The idea was to extend the levy, currently for blank media, to other forms of digital storage that can theoretically include an iPod. Again, the debate was very different back then. Today, there seems to be no mention of compensating artists now that these ads are flying out. Russel McOrmond points out that it was a Conservative that tabled the motion that started it all. McOrmond commented that the Conservative campaign website, ipodtax.ca, is "an embarrassingly inaccurate campaign website". In short, the iPod Tax campaign is known to have problems reflecting the facts correctly and accurately. Many people in the online world pick up very quickly when something is either wrong or misleading and often let the issue or campaign fall off in to the internet ether, never to be seen or heard from again. It's not just us that is proclaiming the issue a non-issue at this stage. Mark Blevis, a digital public affairs strategist, has reached a similar conclusion not just with the popularity of the video on YouTube, but with trends on Twitter as well. Blevis' analysis of Twitter:

Tweets about the iPod tax make up just slightly more than 3/10ths of 1% of all election related tweets for the period of March 26 through April 15 (1,178 of 369,844 Tweets). Even if we remove the April 12th spike of 70,315 tweets (more than 50% of which was debate related) as a statistical anomaly (most days hover between 10,000 and 15,000 tweets), iPod tax related tweets only gain 1/10th of 1%. In fact, the most tweets in one day on the iPod tax (338) barely edged out the Twitter “spanking” directed at @senatorjake (324) for his “attack dogs” tweet.

Blevis also noted that the Stop the iPod Tax campaign managed to get a total of 405 fans on Facebook which contained a "very mixed debate" taking place. Blevis concluded, "I expected a different result. It seemed logical that reminding Canadians a vote for the Liberals would mean a vote to pay an additional $75 on each purchase of an iPod would send people to the web with torches and pitchforks (whether or not the actual claim is true). Despite all the media attention, and the slick ads, it just doesn’t seem to land." So, is this just a case of voter apathy and the demographic simply never getting engaged in politics? I don't think so. I think this is simply a campaign that missed the mark on virtually all counts. The timing was wrong, the facts weren't presented accurately, and it was never the single largest debate to be had to begin with. For people engaged in the online world, that can be a concoction for disaster for anything, let alone a Canadian campaign. The question is, what will gain interest in the younger demographics who can vote? I would put money on a well-funded campaign over two weeks that focused on the following: 1. Why is the government is engaging in secret trade agreements that would allow border security to seize your laptop, cell phone or MP3 player at the border? 2. Will the government enact a three strikes law on internet users that could disconnect internet users, even innocent users, from the internet without court oversight? 3. Why is the government making you pay for your legally paid for material more than once with legal restrictions on DRM or why can't I legally format or time-shift because of the presence of DRM? 4. Why is the government demanding that all of our online conversations (whether private or not) be wire-tapped without a court order? 5. Will the government allow record labels to sue average people for millions of dollars for non-commercial infringement as seen in the US? I bet that if one were to put forth a campaign that dealt with these five points, it'll gain more momentum than the iPod tax issue. I think it's a tragedy that most political parties aren't pushing forward on these issues outside of one-on-one conversations and vague references on their platforms. I mean, talk about lost opportunities to engage with voters here. What do you think? Is the iPod tax not that big of an issue? Could there be other issues that would more likely get your attention? Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93166/canadas-election-is-the-ipod-tax-a-non-issue/feed/ 0