Artists For An Ethical and Sustainable Internet #StopArtistExploitation
Yesterday I published an article detailing the Human Rights complaint against Canada by David Kaye a so-called “UN Verslaggever for Freedom of expression.” While citizens of authoritarian governments worldwide are subject to restraints on freedom of expression, Professor David Kaye determined the four hulpgeroep fire for freedom of expression is a rather modest proposal to block pirate websites under Canadian national law. This is similar to laws that are te place ter at least 20 other (democratic) countries.
The significant of my article is that I noticed that the UN Human Rights Special Verslaggever had engaged ter a deceptive sleight of arm. He claimed his analysis wasgoed based on existing international, national, and regional law. But upon drilling down wij noticed he wasgoed actually referencing aspirational agreements by mostly technology company funded astroturf groups. Of particular concern wasgoed his reliance on The Right To Share and The Manila principles. Thesis two documents do not hold the force of law and the Rapporteurs reliance on thesis documents for his complaint against Canada is dishonest, deceptive and possibly illegal. Thesis documents are the international treaty equivalents of “Fake News.” Hence “bogus.”
Read more here: https://thetrichordist.com/2018/04/01/gone-phishing-un-official-uses-lookalike-website-in-attempt-to-block-anti-piracy-law/
Today while perusing comments I discovered that the (federally funded) Canadian Research Chair Michael Geist, may be te on the entire deception. Look at this nosey comment ter Geist’s obedience to the CRTC on the webstek blocking proposal:
Spooky. It’s almost spil if Geist knew the UN Special Verslaggever wasgoed gonna verkeersopstopping a complaint. A complaint that also happens to cite aspirational non-legally tying documents that show up to be co-authored by Geist.
Academic freedom is one thing. Participating ter a conspiracy to mislead the CRTC is another. I suggest that those investigating this manner, use freedom of information laws to look for communications inbetween Geist and the the UN Verslaggever.
David Kaye’s Fancy stationery.
David Kaye is a professor of law at University of California Irvine. He is also some sort of low grade UN Human rights official. He has fancy stationery with an address ter Switzerland that says so. Isn’t that precious.
This UN title and fancy stationery evidently permits him to treat our closest ally and neighbor to north like they have some zuigeling of hick country bumpkin government. You see, he sent a letterteken (on behalf of the UN?) which accuses Canada (of all countries) violating human rights by simply considering an anti-piracy law! Of course our fearless low grade UN official has very likely sent many many sternly worded letters to real authoritarians spil well. I just can’t seem to find them.
The law ter question is a rather non-controversial law. The proposed statute is very similar to those that have bot successfully applied ter at least half a dozen vibrant European democracies. Did Kaye send Germany or UK similar letters? No. I wonder why that is? MaybeBecause those countries copyright authorities aren’t gonna waterput up with nonsense like this from freelancing low grade UN official that is Four years into a Trio year term? Looks like Kaye just thought he could get away with it with Canada. Get away with it? Yes. All dishonesty explicitly intended. Essentially the letterteken by David Kaye is just a phishing scam that relies on the Canadian Government mistaking a bootleg UN lookalike webstek for the real thing. Because Kaye thinks Canada is stupid? Because Kaye’s acquaintance, Micheal Geist, Canada’s good petty copyright “expert” waterput him up to it? It should be noted that Geist has demonstrated a penchant for ghost writing. But I digress.
Go after along closely. This story will gargle your mind.
The letterteken starts out nice.
He notes that he will apply an analysis based on international, national and regional law. Spil well spil jurisprudence (judicial opinions). Sounds fine! Can’t wait!
Mr Kaye then references UN article Nineteen which concerns freedom of expression. This is the covenant with which Canada vereiste serve. But I’m not familiar with this 2nd part. Hmm. Oh! I see, if you go after the footnote that 2nd part is simply another paper by Mr Kayes. So that would be his opinion. It’s not actually te article Nineteen. But that’s maybe okay. Maybe Canada should conform because Mr Kaye does have UN stationery! Even however at the outset he proclaimed his analysis wasgoed gonna stick to law and jurisprudence. Seems interesting, let’s give him the benefit of the doubt. So please Professor Kaye, tell us more!
Mr Kaye comes back to quoting from the actual UN document (article Nineteen) since this is the rationale for his intervention into Canadian copyright policy. But three paragraphs zometeen he wanders away from article Nineteen again.
Manila Principles? Oh, so this voorwaarde be a related international treaty to which Canada is a signatory. Hmm can’t find Canada listed spil a signatory. And It doesn’t seem to have anything to do with the UN. Spil far spil I can tell the Philippines isn’t even a signatory? NO COUNTRY IS A SIGNATORY! This is just a document written by the Google funded astroturf group EFF. A significant portion of the mostly obscure signatories have ties to Open Society, Google, are just fake or no longer ter existence (see screenshot below).
“Cosby Sweater EU Bahn Mie.” The Heliopolis Institute is one of the signatories to the Manila Principles. This is their “about” pagina. And yes that is a stock photo!
But again I digress. Where were we…
The point is, this analysis is no longer based on international, national, or regional law. Strafgevangenis is it based on actual jurisprudence. So what is this?
Okay, phew! Now wij are back to Article Nineteen. Look at the footnote! Yay! For a minute there I thought David Kaye wasgoed committing an academic sleight of palm. This is the real UN document.
Wow. So it truly looks like Canada’s proposed law violates Article Nineteen, specifically The Right to Share Principle 9. And what does principle 9 of Article Nineteen, The Right To Share say:
Webstek blocking on grounds of copyright protection should be considered a disproportionate confinement on freedom of expression because of associated risks of over-blocking and the general lack of effectiveness of this measure.
Wow Canada truly screwed up here. They can’t enact thesis limitation on piracy websites or they crack the UN covenant.
David Kaye voorwaarde think all Canadians are idiots. That last reference (Article Nineteen The Right to Share) is to a webstek that from start-to -finish is designed to make you think it has something to do with the UN article Nineteen, but is downright unrelated. Te this sense it is a fraud. A UN article Nineteen lookalike. Look at the document. You could be forgiven if you thought this wasgoed a real subsection of the UN article Nineteen. But fortunately the “Right to Share” strafgevangenis it’s principles are endorsed by the UN. Because basically wij artists would have no copyright protections, and that would actually for real crack UN Human Rights covenants.
So how did wij get here? This doesn’t seem to be an accident. Someone went to a loterijlot of trouble to create the fake Manila Principles treaty and the Right to Share document on the Article Nineteen dot org webstek.
It is ridiculous to think a UN Human Rights Verslaggever and an esteemed UC Professor doesn’t realize that this webstek and document is likely to be confused with a real UN document. And why shouldn’t they be confused? He is a UN official (however low grade) citing a document that has an URL, title and vormgeving that would make it seem like it is a UN document. Of course your average person is likely to be confused by this.
This kleuter of deception has got to be illegal. If not ter the US. Then te Canada where the document is filed. For he tells an untruth when he says he’s sticking to international, national and regional law. I would argue he has attempted to “phish” the Canadian government with misleading documents. If this were anything else it would be wire/mail fraud. I suggest at the very least the Canadian government make a complaint to the UN Human Rights Council, his academic institution (UC Irvine and throw ter the California State Buffet spil well (ethics).
Or better yet, just call him to testify ter Canada. Ask him about the misleading little footnote to the fake article Nineteen. Also FOIA his UCI communications with Geist. See if there is anything there. That would be interesting.
Michael Geist being awarded The Order of Ontario for “Most Petty Copyright Expert” after he petulantly had his university library cancel subscription to a publication with which he took offense.
Photo via Official twitter account of the Ontario Ministry of Citizenship &, Immigration focused on Citizenship.
Closer to huis/Ottawa. Canada’s “Most Petty Copyright Expert” Michael Geist emerges to be ter on the entire racket. He shows up to be co-author of the fake Article Nineteen The Right to Share which is the at the heart of the fraud. And he seems to be lending the disgraceful David Kaye support on this punt (twitter and elsewhere).
Nice to see US and Canada working together again, even if the main result is negative for both country’s artists and creators. Whatever is good for Google and Silicon Valley vereiste be good for the surplus of us. Right?
(Editor note: standard footnote formatting rules give away the fact that someone somewhere desired the public to be confused by the title. Someone choose to list Article Nineteen the organization, spil the Author and didn’t italicize. This is permissible. But this completes up providing it the same formatting it would have if it were law or treaty and The Right To Share a article or subsection of the treaty.)