Microsoft Misleads On Canadian Copyright Reform

An anonymous reader writes "As the battle rages over a Canadian DMCA, Microsoft Canada has published an op-ed in a political newspaper that Michael Geist describes as astonishingly misleading and factually incorrect. Microsoft tries to argue that Canadian copyright law provides no legal protections, even after it received one of the largest copyright damage awards in Canadian history just one year ago."

Telling warnings of economic damage

[sugarmotor]

The article states

But as is often the case, such discussions can have a real significance for individual jobs and on our economy in a broader sense.

... translates as "My employer is worried about their source of income"

Stephan

Re:What is misleading is the /. summary

[trolltalk.com]

The article itself gives examples that aren't true. The author of the article is Michael Eisen, chief legal officer at Microsoft Canada, based in Toronto.

Maybe a reader who lives in Ontario, Canada (and thus has standing) can do us all a favour and file a complaint with the Ontario Bar [oba.org] for Eisen's breech of professional ethics in misleading the public, and bringing the practice of law into disrepute.

Why wouldn't they?

[esocid]

Why wouldn't they mislead about copyright reform. They already abuse the broken patent system and now are trying to claim that Linux violates their patents. They are just trying to perpetuate this broken system that is in need of good reform. We'll see how many people really call them on this bs.
M$:You stole our code.
L:No we didn't. Show us.
M$:I'm sorry that is a trade secret, just take our word for it.

The Worst Part...

[whisper_jeff]

The worst part of this (beyond Microsoft's outright self-serving lies) is that most Canadians are horribly uninformed/misinformed about copyright laws and will believe virtually anything they hear making copyright FUD north of the border very effective. It would be nice if more people, like Michael Geist, tried to get the truth out there but sadly his sort are rare...

Truth? Microsoft?

[QuietLagoon]

Why does anyone expect the truth from Microsoft anymore?

"LYING"

[Doc Ruby]

"Misleading"? "Factually incorrect"? Why will no one reporting on lies just come out and call them lies? By pulling these punches, the writers/editors/publishers are lying.

There, I said it. And I feel better already for telling the truth.

Re:Truth? Microsoft?

[causality]

For that matter, why does anyone expect truth from any party with a vested interest? Microsoft isn't special in that regard.

Re:"LYING"

[Anonymous Coward]

They probably don't say that because "lies" means that it was intentional while "misleading" and "factually incorrect" do not. While we can reasonably assume that the lying is intentional here in Slashdot comments, the reporter has a duty to distinguish between fact and speculation. Calling them liars conflates the two.

Re:Reverse onus in Canadian libel law

[Doc Ruby]

Actually, I think that if someone says something in public that could damage the person they're talking about, then the burden of proof is on the person saying it. But simply citing the evidence that someone said something they knew was false, or that the subject willfully ignored the truth when speaking of it, when they say that person is lying, should constitute sufficient proof to dismiss any libel case. And to recover defense legal fees, as well as the ironically reverse damages for falsely accusing someone of libel.

FWIW, lawyers bringing frivolous libel suits should be disbarred after bringing 3 in any 10 years, or a lifetime of maybe 5 or 6.

Re:Why doesn't Microsoft...

[Curtman]

Oh great. A story on Microsoft attempting to influence Canadian parliamentary decisions and you fucks turn it into a discussion about U.S. political candidates. Damn you.