Yep, it ain’t just the Conservatives playing the “peons don’t need to know” game.

Six months ago an amendment was passed to Ontario’s Freedom of Information and Protection of Privacy Act (FIPPA). It was folded in like whipped egg white to a cake batter, the batter being Bill 122: “An Act to increase the financial accountability of organizations in the broader public sector.” Part VIII of Bill 122 amends FIPPA so that the act “does not apply to records relating to the provision of abortion services.”

http://www.nationalpost.com/m/wp/full-comment/blog.html?b=fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/05/barbara-kay-mcguinty-liberals-put-top-secret-label-on-abortion-figures

You may remember Ford’s spat with the Toronto Star’s Daniel Dale a little while ago. It started with Dale poking around behind the Mayor’s house, investigating the veracity of an application to extend his Rotundness’ property  in order to add another fence.

Another fence, on top of an already solid six-footer because, to quote the big man directly:

“Our primary concern is the safety of Douglas and Stephanie, our two young children, having a secure area to play. The addition of this parcel of land to our property would allow us to install a better security fence that will help to enhance the safety of our children.”

…

“We have a number of safety concerns, as we have encountered youth encroaching on our property late at night on a number of occasions.”

The entire thing, in other words, is based on Rob’s concern for his children’s safety. All those pesky teens are making him jittery.

And now, in light of this past weekend’s shooting at the Eaton Centre by a man not too long out of his teens (in which a young teen was killed), here’s what Fordo had to say:

“Let’s just continue living our lives like we do every day — go out and have fun and take it from there,” Ford said at police headquarters. “It’s been a terrible couple of days but this is definitely, like I said before, the safest city in the world.”

So apparently when it comes to Ford’s part of town, those no-good teens giving him the stink-eye pose a clear and present danger, so much so that he applied to put up double fences on public land, but when it comes to a public murder in a busy downtown shopping centre, it’s suddenly the safest city in the world.

This, ladies and gentlemen, is the very definition of self-serving hypocrisy. It’s yet another example of Rob Ford looking out for Rob Ford, lying and deceiving Torontonians the whole way.

The elimination of the Land Transfer Tax is actually a Ford election promise, unlike his push for subways, so that part of his ongoing bluster on the subject is true. The rest, however, including his recent assurance to have it eliminated by the end of his term, has been just one long pile of growing bullkaka.

For starters, shortly before he was elected he made a speech to the Toronto Real Estate Board promising that the LTT would be completely gone by the end of 2012 … “guaranteed!”

Ford blamed the Ontario government’s impending election for delaying the changes beyond his first year.

A little over that first year later, speaking in front of the same group, he vowed to have the LTT reduced by up to 25% by the end of 2012.

“I can’t say we’re gonna wipe it out this year, but it might be a quarter this year, a half next year, or — you know, but we’re gonna do it piece by piece. You’re gonna see a portion of the land transfer tax, I don’t know how much right now, be gone by the end of next year,” Ford said.

Granted we’re not exactly at the end of 2012 yet but Ford is already backing down on even this revised plan (once again revealed in front of the same Toronto Real Estate Board meeting), saying that he’d like to have the process of repealing the tax started by the end of his term in 2014. And in typical Ford fashion, he wants people to “get in councillor’s faces” in order to get his way.

“Folks, you must get in the councillors’ faces,” Mr. Ford said. “As we succeed in reducing costs, we can begin to phase out that terrible land transfer tax, which I never supported and I am adamant to get rid of. I’d like to start doing that before this council term is up.”

To reiterate:

2010 – Rob Ford “guarantees” to have the LTT eliminated by 2012, maybe 2011. Blames MPs, elections for possible delays.
2011 –  Rob Ford cuts back on his “guarantee”, now claiming to have the LTT reduced by about 25% in 2012.
2012 – Rob Ford completely reneges on his “guarantee”, vowing to hopefully set something in motion on the LTT by the end of 2014 (much like many of his other plans). He invites constituents to get in councillors’ faces, presumably because he blames them for his inability to gain traction on the issue.

This, according to Ford-backing tabloid Toronto Sun, is considered “tackling” the LTT. Hmm…why is it still walking then?

The group is called Re:Sound, and here’s just a smattering of the bullshit they’re peddling (from their website):

You may not be aware that you need a licence to use music in your business, but it is your responsibility to get the right licence(s) if you are playing music in public. Licences are also required by public and commercial broadcasters.

Not entirely true. There is at least one exceptions in the Copyright Act where you can “use music” in your business without being harassed by yet another copyright goon squad:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/C-42/page-48.html#docCont

In respect of public performances by means of any radio receiving set in any place other than a theatre that is ordinarily and regularly used for entertainments to which an admission charge is made, no royalties shall be collectable from the owner or user of the radio receiving set, but the Board shall, in so far as possible, provide for the collection in advance from radio broadcasting stations of royalties appropriate to the conditions produced by the provisions of this subsection and shall fix the amount of the same.

In other words, if you are playing music through a radio or over a web station, the station is already paying tariffs so you don’t have to. But what does that matter? They can claim that you owe them cash even if you’re just playing music over a boombox while having a picnic in the park with friends:

G. PARKS, STREETS AND OTHER PUBLIC AREAS

Application

1. (1) This tariff sets the royalties to be paid for the performance in public or the communication to the public by telecommunication of published sound recordings embodying musical works and performers’ performances of such works in the repertoire of Re:Sound in parks, streets and other public areas.

Interestingly, there are a series of stipulations in Canadian copyright law called “fair dealing” which exempts people from being harassed. Funny how Re:Sound makes no mention of these:

It is important to clarify some general considerations about exceptions to copyright infringement. Procedurally, a defendant is required to prove that his or her dealing with a work has been fair; however, the fair dealing exception is perhaps more properly understood as an integral part of the Copyright Act than simply a defence. Any act falling within the fair dealing exception will not be an infringement of copyright. The fair dealing exception, like other exceptions in the Copyright Act, is a user’s right. In order to maintain the proper balance between the rights of a copyright owner and users’ interests, it must not be interpreted restrictively.

1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that “these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users’ rights.” In particular, the Court gave a “a large and liberal interpretation” to the notion of research, stating that “lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research”.
2. The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after being used? What is the general practice in the industry?
3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing as there would not be copyright infringement at all. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing. The amount of the work taken must be fair in light of the purpose of the dealing.
4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a “non-copyrighted equivalent of the work” available to the user? Was the dealing “reasonably necessary to achieve the ultimate purpose”?
5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work “in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work – one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair.”
6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? “Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair.”

When I mention “yet another” copyright good squad, that’s because this new body is looking to charge people for the same thing that an already existing group, SOCAN, is doing:

Re:Sound and SOCAN are distinct organisations that represent different groups and as such, both are required to be compensated.

But while it’s claimed that these are two “distinct organizations”, the law gives them right to squeal on you to each other:

(2) Re:Sound may share information referred to in subsection (1)

1. (a) in connection with the collection of royalties or the enforcement of a tariff, with SOCAN;

Just like that, the Intellectual Property mafia come along and double your monthly “protection” fees.

And just like any other organization in who’s debt you are simply for existing, they’re ready to charge you interest until you cough up the dough:

Interest on Late Payments

7. Any amount not received by the due date shall bear interest from that date until the date the amount is received. Interest shall be calculated daily, at a rate equal to one per cent above the Bank Rate effective on the last day of the previous month (as published by the Bank of Canada). Interest shall not compound.

Particularly troubling is the section of the Copyright Act that says that bodies like Re:Sound are required to compensate artists if they happen to be collecting tariffs for their works, even if they don’t represent them and have no claim to the copyright:

Claims by non-members

• 76. (1) An owner of copyright who does not authorize a collective society to collect, for that person’s benefit, royalties referred to in paragraph 31(2)(d) is, if the work is communicated to the public by telecommunication during a period when an approved tariff that is applicable to that kind of work is effective, entitled to be paid those royalties by the collective society that is designated by the Board, of its own motion or on application, subject to the same conditions as those to which a person who has so authorized that collective society is subject.

• Marginal note:Royalties that may be recovered

  (2) An owner of copyright who does not authorize a collective society to collect, for that person’s benefit, royalties referred to in subsection 29.6(2) or 29.7(2) or (3) is, if such royalties are payable during a period when an approved tariff that is applicable to that kind of work or other subject-matter is effective, entitled to be paid those royalties by the collective society that is designated by the Board, of its own motion or on application, subject to the same conditions as those to which a person who has so authorized that collective society is subject.

• Marginal note:Exclusion of remedies

  (3) The entitlement referred to in subsections (1) and (2) is the only remedy of the owner of the copyright for the payment of royalties for the communication, making of the copy or sound recording or performance in public, as the case may be.

In other words, if these organizations are collecting tariffs on your music, you can demand to be paid for that “service”. However, that’s all you can do. So, the organization can collect money on music that they have absolutely no rights to, and you, as owner of the music, have no other remedies. Read that section again if you don’t believe me.

It’s a messed up way of claiming the right to collect money on your music without claiming direct ownership over it — though the difference is the same if the law claims you can’t restrict someone from collecting money on your own works.

To put it another way, the very “crimes” that these organizations are supposed to be preventing are what they are basically being welcomed to engage in — by law. And if it so happens that you don’t know your music is being milked by Re:Sound for the benefit of their “partners”, too bad. And even if you do, too bad. They get to charge money for all music everywhere, and you’d better like it. You might get paid … eventually.

Of course, if it turns out you underpaid the copyright mafia, they reserve the right to get all up in your business and force you to cough up and pay at any time for a period of up to 6 years back; and, of course, if they ripped you off, there exists no provision to protect you in the same way:

Records and Audits

4. (1) A person subject to this tariff shall keep and preserve, for a period of six years after the end of the year to which they relate, records from which that person’s payment under this tariff can be readily ascertained.

(2) Re:Sound may audit these records at any time during the period set out in subsection (1), on reasonable notice and during normal business hours.

(3) Re:Sound shall, upon receipt, supply a copy of the report of the audit to the person who was the subject of the audit.

(4) If an audit discloses that the royalties owed to Re:Sound during any reporting period have been understated by more than ten per cent, the subject of the audit shall pay the amount of the understatement and the reasonable costs of the audit within 30 days of the demand for such payment.

Do you suppose you get to charge Re:Sound interest if it turns out they’ve been charging people for playing your music for years without your permission?

And if you don’t think that the copyright goon squad will play nice and fair, there are plenty of recent examples demonstrating that they have absolutely no intention of doing that.

Originally posted at: http://patrickbay.ca/blog/?p=3527