Slashdot Mirror

http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&file=4

it was Bill C-61 first, then it died and was replaced by Bill C-32 which also died. Now its called Bill C-11. Have fun reading this.

Theres also a website which gives lots of information on that bill : http://www.digital-copyright.ca/billc11/

I read border and cyber security, but it all looks like blah-blah-DMCA-blah-blah-Patriot Act-blah blah. This is a smoke screen. There's no Canadian/US boarder problem. There's only a CMPDA/MPAA & CRIA/RIAA problem. Oh yeah, and we gotta git d'em turrists with a stronger North American wide Patriot Act!

If you're going to think that way, there's not much point in using Windows at all. Due to inherent flaws in Windows any access to a Windows machine can be subverted into root access, thus hackers are much more likely to target that known flaw than any hypothetical but unknown flaws in Opera.

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/3284
http://news.techworld.com/security/115456/windows-7-inherently-insecure-says-researcher/
http://www.anti-trend.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=50&Itemid=1
http://tech.slashdot.org/story/10/01/20/1359237/Newly-Found-Windows-Bug-Affects-All-Versions-Since-NT?from=rss

So... His best bet would be to switch his sister and her husband using Opera (or Firefox, or Konqueror, or Chrome, or something else) on Ubuntu (obviously as a non-root user) or really any non-Windows OS.

I just wanted people to know that we have drafted a petition against ACTA. Politicians have no clue what is going on, and this is one tool among many to make it show up on the agenda.

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/acta/

"Give a man a fish and he eats for a day. Teach him to fish and he eats for a lifetime."

You forgot the real issue here, which is that Bono, Gates and similar pseudo-philanthropists are actively involved with making a variety of "teaching" (sharing of knowledge) expensive and/or illegal. This is the core of what Bono is ranting about this time, suggesting the world's governments should go as far as the human rights violations in China to (theoretically -- no proof of "benefit") grant him more money.

There are those who think that making knowledge scarce, including criminalising private citizens owning and controlling their own communications technology, is the only way to make it possible to pay authors/inventors for their important contributions to society. This ignores all the experience and research to the contrary. Whether you believe this or not, you must admit that deliberately making knowledge scarce and thus more expensive greatly harms the interests of the worlds poor.

Sharing: the way to Make Poverty History.

The repercussions of deliberately making knowledge scarce will be an underlying issue that will show up in many global conflicts in the next decade, whether talking about poverty, western economic recovery or global climate change.

I think you are missing that this is not a letter that was sent from "the government" of Canada. This was someone who is an advisor in the Intellectual Property Branch of Environment Canada. http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/5100

For all I can tell from the government directory, this could be a private sector consultant. His entry doesn't look much different than my own when I'm on contract to the government. Try looking up my name in January in http://sage-geds.tpsgc-pwgsc.gc.ca/ , as I am returning to a contract at Agriculture Canada doing Linux Sysadmin/GIS work.

An email from me, regardless of what email address I use, should never be confused as an official statement from the Government of Canada.

Before we head down the DRM on devices thread, I hope I've made clear why I've dropped endorsement/etc of Lulu. They are not involved in devices, only content. They offer a choice of DRM and DRM-free to authors, something I don't personally believe authors should have a choice about for reasons that have to do with competition/anti-trust law (tied selling, refusal to deal, etc) and not copyright or property law. My opposition to DRM on content is for reasons different than my opposition to DRM on technology.

I endorsed Lulu in the past because I thought they were different than traditional publishers on this critical point, and their recent changes indicated to me that they are not different and thus should not be endorsed.

Enough on that....

"If any DRM features are explicitly enumerated to you before you purchase the device, I still don't see the problem."

I have yet to see a device that accurately explained how its use of foreign locks worked. Some of them gave temporary examples of some of the logic a DRM system used, but never the fact that the device is intended to be under the control of the manufacturer (executing logic determined unilaterally by the manufacturer) and not the person who possesses it.

I have blogged where I call DRM "Dishonest Relationship Misinformation. When I purchase something, that should mean that I should be able to control what I own (for lawful purposes of course). If someone else wants to retain control, then they should have to retain ownership and all the rights and responsibilities that go with that. Someone other than the owner can posses something, and that is called a rental (or similar relationship).

We have a whole series of laws in most countries that make rental relationships clear between the owners and renters. There are limits on what the owners can do, some rights of the renter are protected, and there are responsibilities for both parties.

By claiming something is "sold" and the purchaser does not gain ownership rights is simply dishonest, and opens the door to a whole series of abuses and misunderstandings. We need the right set of legal rules (rental) to be invoked when the relationship is in fact rental in nature.

So, I don't have a problem with digital technology being rented to people for those people who want that type of relationship. We can even have "rent to own" relationships where the device is unlocked after a contract expires. What I have a problem with is all the fallout of being dishonest about the relationship and claiming that a rental is a "sale" where your property rights aren't honoured.

See also: Petition to protect Information Technology property rights

While people recognize and will protect their property rights for their homes, cars and other such property, most are unaware of the attacks on the rights associated with information technology.

Imagine the builder of your home or the manufacturer of your car put locks on your doors and refused to give you the keys. They used the keys as a way to only allow you into your home when you have gained their permission to do so, and only under conditions they have set. The builder/manufacturer has made arrangements with other companies such that they will protect the interests of these third parties against you, the owner. The builder/manufacturer has also gone to various governments to make it illegal for you to remove their locks in order to put your own locks on, so that you can protect your property rights.

"You know what you're buying."

YOU may know what you are buying, as a fellow technical person. What far too many technical people seem to forget is that they are in an extreme minority. I have spent years doing my "I am holding up 4 things in my hand" presentation on explaining DRM, and few had even the slightest idea of how this technology worked befor

Before we head down the DRM on devices thread, I hope I've made clear why I've dropped endorsement/etc of Lulu. They are not involved in devices, only content. They offer a choice of DRM and DRM-free to authors, something I don't personally believe authors should have a choice about for reasons that have to do with competition/anti-trust law (tied selling, refusal to deal, etc) and not copyright or property law. My opposition to DRM on content is for reasons different than my opposition to DRM on technology.

I endorsed Lulu in the past because I thought they were different than traditional publishers on this critical point, and their recent changes indicated to me that they are not different and thus should not be endorsed.

Enough on that....

"If any DRM features are explicitly enumerated to you before you purchase the device, I still don't see the problem."

I have yet to see a device that accurately explained how its use of foreign locks worked. Some of them gave temporary examples of some of the logic a DRM system used, but never the fact that the device is intended to be under the control of the manufacturer (executing logic determined unilaterally by the manufacturer) and not the person who possesses it.

I have blogged where I call DRM "Dishonest Relationship Misinformation. When I purchase something, that should mean that I should be able to control what I own (for lawful purposes of course). If someone else wants to retain control, then they should have to retain ownership and all the rights and responsibilities that go with that. Someone other than the owner can posses something, and that is called a rental (or similar relationship).

We have a whole series of laws in most countries that make rental relationships clear between the owners and renters. There are limits on what the owners can do, some rights of the renter are protected, and there are responsibilities for both parties.

By claiming something is "sold" and the purchaser does not gain ownership rights is simply dishonest, and opens the door to a whole series of abuses and misunderstandings. We need the right set of legal rules (rental) to be invoked when the relationship is in fact rental in nature.

So, I don't have a problem with digital technology being rented to people for those people who want that type of relationship. We can even have "rent to own" relationships where the device is unlocked after a contract expires. What I have a problem with is all the fallout of being dishonest about the relationship and claiming that a rental is a "sale" where your property rights aren't honoured.

See also: Petition to protect Information Technology property rights

While people recognize and will protect their property rights for their homes, cars and other such property, most are unaware of the attacks on the rights associated with information technology.

Imagine the builder of your home or the manufacturer of your car put locks on your doors and refused to give you the keys. They used the keys as a way to only allow you into your home when you have gained their permission to do so, and only under conditions they have set. The builder/manufacturer has made arrangements with other companies such that they will protect the interests of these third parties against you, the owner. The builder/manufacturer has also gone to various governments to make it illegal for you to remove their locks in order to put your own locks on, so that you can protect your property rights.

"You know what you're buying."

YOU may know what you are buying, as a fellow technical person. What far too many technical people seem to forget is that they are in an extreme minority. I have spent years doing my "I am holding up 4 things in my hand" presentation on explaining DRM, and few had even the slightest idea of how this technology worked befor

Read the article at http://flora.ca/own. I am not talking about DRM on content which only limits interoperability to "authorised" devices. I do not own the copyrighted work simply because I purchase a copy.

What I'm talking about the DRM on the authorised device, which is something I do own.

You may also want to check out: The Two Locks of DRM:

When I am explaining DRM to politicians, I feel like I am Ralph Nader back in 1965. He explained that with an automobile accident there are two collisions: the car hits something, and the passenger hits the car. While automobile safety up to that point concentrated only on the first collision, it was quickly understood that safety features should concentrate on the second collision. This gave us dashboards that weren't made out of metal, seatbelts, air bags, and other such second-collision safety features. We have the same problem with DRM where policy makers think there is only one "digital lock" being discussed, when in fact there are two and it is the lock they are less aware of that is the source of most of the controversy.

I never bookmarked where I originally read about it, but here is one paper discussing the issue within the larger context of TRIPS:
http://www.aids-freeworld.org/content/view/162/71/

Here's reporting on the "chilling effect" of the foundation's funding:
http://www.aegis.com/news/wsj/2002/WJ020509.html

Implied impact on canadian proxy manufacturing:
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/3731

I hope that tangible property rights will trump the business models of special interest groups.

Petition to protect Information Technology property rights
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

The problem thus far is that politicians have been believing the "theft is theft" rhetoric from the special interest groups http://www.digital-copyright.ca/Jefferson_Debate , not adequately realizing that these groups are opponents of tangible property rights.

Eventually the public will understand the technology behind this policy, and recognize who the anti-property/anti-capitalist special interest groups really are. (Hint: They use acronyms like RIAA/CRIA, MPAA/CMPDA, BSA/CAAST, etc).

I hope that tangible property rights will trump the business models of special interest groups.

Petition to protect Information Technology property rights
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

The problem thus far is that politicians have been believing the "theft is theft" rhetoric from the special interest groups http://www.digital-copyright.ca/Jefferson_Debate , not adequately realizing that these groups are opponents of tangible property rights.

Eventually the public will understand the technology behind this policy, and recognize who the anti-property/anti-capitalist special interest groups really are. (Hint: They use acronyms like RIAA/CRIA, MPAA/CMPDA, BSA/CAAST, etc).

Michael Geist was the editor of an entire book that was critical of the Liberal C-60, so it is simply invalid to suggest this is a partisan issue.

http://www.irwinlaw.com/books.aspx?bookid=120

Note: It is Creative Commons licensed, and able to be downloaded for free if you want to see what it said against the Liberal Bill C-60.

I am also one of those actively involved in this policy, and I could care less about partisan politics. This is an issue where the knowledge of individual people matter, not the parties. I work with informed MPs from any party, and disagree with misinformed MPs from any party. It just happens that right now the government is Conservative (and thus that is the party giving the silent treatment), and the most informed member on this area of policy is musician Charlie Angus who just happens to be with the NDP.

That doesn't make this a left-leaning issue, just a matter of coincidence. Some of our greatest opponents in this debate come from various creator "unions", and some of the strongest supporters are right-leaning supporters of tangible property rights http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/

People need to be looking at this issue in terms of possible election. During the election we need to identify people who will be helpful to us, and people who are harmful -- no matter what political party they are from. This area of policy is really about specific people, not about the parties.

The Liberals were proponents of this policy direction after tabling Bill C-60, the not-quite-as-bad-as-DMCA implementation, and generally were uninterested in any conversations. That is typical of the governing party to have party MPs just tow the party line. The Conservatives at the time said nothing relevant as a party, with individual MPs being all over the map. The Conservative party platform around Copyright didn't touch the hot-button issues (new right of non-interoperability for Copyright holders, legal protection for foreign locks placed on our hardware, will actual evidence of infringing activity be needed for P2P/etc cases, etc).

The Conservatives are now proponents of this policy direction after tabling C-61, the much-worse-than-DMCA implementation, and Conservative MPs are generally uninterested in any conversations. The Liberals are now all over the map, but mostly just opposing for the sake of opposing, and not being any more clear than the Conservatives were around C-60 on what their positions is.

The Bloc is currently a wildcard as they lost their Heritage critic who is running provincially rather than federally. They have historically sided with individual/independent creators, just as the NDP has. The NDP is now clearly on our side http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4787 , after a switch of Heritage critics (from someone who didn't understand digital issues to a musician who does). The same type of thing can happen with the Bloc if the right well-informed MP gets elected and takes on this area of policy for the party.

That's the 4 parties with seats in the current parliament. During and immediately after an election is the best time for parties to form and articulate different policy directions, so we really need to be meeting with everyone (including candidates in the upcoming election, not just our current MPs) to determine who-is-who and to make sure they all know that constituents are concerned about this issue.

By the way -- anyone who doesn't know about http://digital-copyright.ca/ should check the site out and get involved in the forums. We also have a BLOG with a taxonomy topic for each riding, allowing us to build a library of articles about specific MPs and candidates.

People need to be looking at this issue in terms of possible election. During the election we need to identify people who will be helpful to us, and people who are harmful -- no matter what political party they are from. This area of policy is really about specific people, not about the parties.

The Liberals were proponents of this policy direction after tabling Bill C-60, the not-quite-as-bad-as-DMCA implementation, and generally were uninterested in any conversations. That is typical of the governing party to have party MPs just tow the party line. The Conservatives at the time said nothing relevant as a party, with individual MPs being all over the map. The Conservative party platform around Copyright didn't touch the hot-button issues (new right of non-interoperability for Copyright holders, legal protection for foreign locks placed on our hardware, will actual evidence of infringing activity be needed for P2P/etc cases, etc).

The Conservatives are now proponents of this policy direction after tabling C-61, the much-worse-than-DMCA implementation, and Conservative MPs are generally uninterested in any conversations. The Liberals are now all over the map, but mostly just opposing for the sake of opposing, and not being any more clear than the Conservatives were around C-60 on what their positions is.

The Bloc is currently a wildcard as they lost their Heritage critic who is running provincially rather than federally. They have historically sided with individual/independent creators, just as the NDP has. The NDP is now clearly on our side http://www.digital-copyright.ca/node/4787 , after a switch of Heritage critics (from someone who didn't understand digital issues to a musician who does). The same type of thing can happen with the Bloc if the right well-informed MP gets elected and takes on this area of policy for the party.

That's the 4 parties with seats in the current parliament. During and immediately after an election is the best time for parties to form and articulate different policy directions, so we really need to be meeting with everyone (including candidates in the upcoming election, not just our current MPs) to determine who-is-who and to make sure they all know that constituents are concerned about this issue.

By the way -- anyone who doesn't know about http://digital-copyright.ca/ should check the site out and get involved in the forums. We also have a BLOG with a taxonomy topic for each riding, allowing us to build a library of articles about specific MPs and candidates.

Sorry, but copyright infringement isn't anything remotely like "theft".

Jefferson Debate: A Godwin's law for copyright discussions?
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/Jefferson_Debate

Yes, this was discussed in an earlier Slashdot story, " RIAA Argues That MP3s From CDs Are Unauthorized", and in a bunch of other places:

* Boing Boing p2pnet reddit Heise Online (German) Truemors BlogRunner/Digital Rights Hugh Casey IDG (Polish) Geek News Central CE Pro Gizmodo TechDirt Read/Write Web Thomas Hawk's Digital Connection TDPRI WhatReallyHappened.com Slyck Root.cz (Czech) Craigslist Forums Hard OCP Wired.com Uneasy Silence Overclock.net Wake World SpaceBattles.com Hydrogen Audio BrickFilms.com Hockey Zombie iLounge Zune Scene AllmanBrothersBand.com Golem (German) PC Magazin (German) Tweakers (Dutch) Mackauf (German) Wake Space Kino-eye.com Digital Copyright Canada Northwest Progressive Institute Louisville Music News Frant

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/press20050508.shtml Crap now what?

Indeed, the accusations of "frustration and emotional distress", as stated by the submitter are vague and meaningless. Is criticism on an open forum thought crime? http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/term/394

Should be a giant "shove off" , "get lost" , "stuff it", etc. ...

The problem is that the response wont be. Steven Harper has a reputation for being a lap-dog of the US/UK.

The only way to stop Canadian copyright laws being perverted is by taking action. Send letters to your MP, if this becomes a bill in Parliament then see if there's a peaceful protest you can attend. Make the government clearly realise that voters do not want a Canadian DMCA and that current copyright laws (particularly the clauses for 'fair use' this threatens) are good enough.

There is no compelling reason to have a Canadian DMCA. Harper has been deterred from ditching Kyoto, he can be deterred from this too.

Not only does each province have a privacy commissioner, there is a federal privacy commissioner in Canada, as well as consumer rights groups.

http://www.cippic.ca/en/faqs-resources/digital-rig hts-management/

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/taxonomy/term/370? page=14

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1383/125/

To be sure, lots of Canadians use the levy as moral justification to pirate as much music as they can, often citing the fact that artists are compensated by the levy (the reality is that it largely goes to Canadian artists).

The petition is to the Canadian parliament, and is on behalf of all owners of Information Technology -- not just those who choose any specific brand of hardware or software.

Our existing petitions have already had an important effect, letting politicians know that there are more constituencies in this issue than the incumbent industry associations. Our new petition tries to move away from the myths that DRM is about "content control" when in fact it is about "hardware control". This "hardware control" impacts your usage of hardware you own, regardless of whether you are using "premium content" or not.

This is also not a Microsoft and/or Apple issue, as these bad laws impact all users of technology whether or not they are ever a customer of Microsoft or Apple.

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/ict/
"THEREFORE, your petitioners call upon Parliament to prohibit the application of a technical protection measure to a device without the informed consent of the owner of the device, and to prohibit the conditioning of the supply of content to the purchase or use of a device which has a technical measure applied to it. We further call upon Parliament to recognise the right of citizens to personally control their own communication devices, and to choose software based on their own personal criteria."

I just came back from a film, in Montreal. At theatres it's common to have staff check your bags (especially at downtown theatres) for camcorders etc, and of course there are warnings everywhere about how it's a crime to film a movie in the theatre (even if it isn't). These measure I support - hey, it's their theatre - but the big studios coming out with this FUD just as the government seeks to change the Copyright Act is way over the top. And so are their statistics. Unfortunately, these obvious tactics have been know to work, let's make sure this time it doesn't: Inform yourself and don't just sign a petition, but sign up and write your MP. Visit the CPPIC for more.

As far as the threat to delay movie releases, please do! It may give the small domestic film industry a little opportunity when some moviegoers arriving at the theatre choose to see a Canadian film, instead of the delayed American crud that they thought was out.

But here's the catch. Under the Copyright Act, you have to prove that an individual camcording in the theatre is doing it for distribution purposes.

We don't want to have to prove the economic loss from distribution. We want it to be a Criminal Code activity to be caught camcording. Period.

Canada never had "Fair Use" rights to begin with, but a much more limited "Fair Dealings" regime. While there are many ways in which the US copyright act is less balanced than Canada, there are areas such as crown copyright and Fair Use where the USA is much further ahead.

Many Canadian organizations are calling for Canada to adopt a "Fair Use" regime that would clarify that things such as time, space and device shifting are not infringements. I'm just glad the case that tested the legality of the VCR and Grokster happened in the USA and not in Canada! Canadians might have gotten a wake-up-call as to just how out-of-date our copyright act is in relation to new communications media and what most people presume is legal.

See: Copyright-related Policy summary for CLUE: Canada's Association for Free/Libre and Open Source Software.

Digital Copyright Canada is also a great source for Canadian-specific information on Copyright, Patent, FLOSS and related issues. While not all of us are lawyers (Some are), we can help translate some of the myths in the media into what is actually in the copyright act or being proposed. We have two paper petitions to parliament, a letter writing campaign, and a BLOG taxonomy that allows you to see articles written about your own MP.

P.S. The Private Copying Levy (Referred to as a "tax" in various comments) only applies to recorded music, not movies or television. While it authorizes the making of private copies of music, it does not allow for private copies of anything else.

A petition exists which has around 2500 signatures already and is sent to parliament as new batches of signatures are received.

The Canadian Coalition for Fair Digital Access sounds like a positive group. In reality they are a group of retailers attempting to abolish the media levy in Canada to make the environment more friendly to suing file sharers and otherwise pushing online music sales through turning their customers into instant criminals.
They claim they want to protect Canadians from an "unfair" tax, when in reality they want to abolish the small media tax we pay to impose a bigger cost and restriction on those who use MP3s. While not claiming to be experts, its the same thing. A group of individuals claiming to be on the side of freedom and the consumer who have their own ulterior motives.

Website is currently down, so here are some cached links:
"Who we are"
http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:2mAYYuIzwqsJ:w ww.ccfda.ca/subsections/eng_whoweare.html+site:www .ccfda.ca+Canadian+Coalition+for+Fair+Digital+Acce ss%22&hl=en&gl=ca&ct=clnk&cd=2

Google search with cache links to most of the site: http://www.google.ca/search?hl=en&lr=&safe=off&q=+ site:www.ccfda.ca+Canadian+Coalition+for+Fair+Digi tal+Access%22

One man's open letter response to their position:
http://www.digital-copyright.ca/discuss/1645

If you are a Canadian you can help send this message to parliament by signing our Petition to protect Information Technology property rights.

Today I posted an article to the website of CLUE: The Canadian Association for Open Source, titled "Whose hardware is it anyway?" (Copy on the Digital Copyright Canada forum).

If you are a Canadian you can help send this message to parliament by signing our Petition to protect Information Technology property rights.

Today I posted an article to the website of CLUE: The Canadian Association for Open Source, titled "Whose hardware is it anyway?" (Copy on the Digital Copyright Canada forum).

Here it's the British-inherited tradition of "fair dealing". Which I suppose usually amounts to the same thing, but it's important to know the true name if you're going to look it up (like looking up fair dealing in Canada on Wikipedia, for example).

Since all this talk is about "fair use" and the American situation, it's often hard to quite know where Canada stands. To be honest, the answer is probably "dragging along behind the States", but as far as Canada has any self-determination over its own laws there are at least a few current sources from which one can gleam the current state, debate and trends. First is noting how recently during the last election any non-serious news shows were forbidden from showing clips from the leaders' debate. A good sample case showing the state of these concepts such as "public domain", eh?

There are two more rather interesting sources that spring to mind. One is this website which is a good source for current news as to copyright laws in Canada with an obvious emphasis on the digital side (which is, after all, where most of these battles are being fought right now). The other source is the book "In The Public Interest", which is a collection of different essays and is available at that link for free download under a creative commons license (nice to see them putting their money where their mouth is!).

The sad part is, we may not have our own DMCA yet . . . but at this rate (note that Bill C-60 only really failed to pass because the government fell before it went through the House) it shouldn't be that long until we do.

Bill C60 will change this.

It is one of the major new additions to the proposed copyright law.

The election has delayed C60, but it's unlikely to stay delayed for long (as it apparently has a fair amount of support). If you oppose Bill C60, you should demand public hearings to that producers of copyrighted material can have input into the process (so far input has largely been made from distributors and Americans).

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/billc60/ for more information...

The http://digital-copyright.ca/ will be helping people to find their candidates as well as other people who are interested in these areas of policy.

While the SonyBMG RootKit scandal that the current Government wishes to legally protect won't be as well known as the Sponsorship Scandal, we should still do what we can to expose the problems.

You can watch excellent content even through the Winamp media library, using a simple mix of efficient audio and video codecs for streaming. Alo, an interesting mailing list post in this respect (companies being slow to deliver real time video)

... copyright is Life+50. They celebrate Public Domain Day. For instance, on January 1, 2006, the works of James Agee, Bernard DeVoto, Albert Einstein, Wallace Stevens, Hermann Weyl and so, so many others will be in the public domain... in Canada.

'Course, you may see some legislation before Public Domain Day 2007, as A. A. Milne will move into the public domain then. If not then, certainly in 2013, as C. S. Lewis's works, including the entire Chronicles of Narnia, will be released.

I would just like to remind Canadians about http://killbillc60.ca/ and specifically the page http://www.digital-copyright.ca/billc60/do_somethi ng.shtml which offers suggestions on what people can do.

It is very important that people speak out, otherwise no matter how many new books are authored the government will listen to the chicken little "sky is falling" crisis manufactured by the recording, motion picture, and "software manufacturing" industries.

Dont over look Bill c-60 there is a DMCA clause they have put in it I just hope its scrapped I live in Canada to. http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ For more info and links

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/
there's a petition, and a mailing list... please everyone (that live in canada) try to sing that petiton and send it to your MP

I did some research (using Google, oddly enough) and found a petition against most of what is in this bill.

http://www.digital-copyright.ca/petition/

Indeed, that is something that all Canadians who are against this bill should sign, no doubt.

Normally, I would post this anonymously to avoid being a "karma whore", but since it's late in the day and the story has been up for a while...

The following is mentioned every time a Slashdot story is posted about Canadian copyright law, but it deserves to be repeated: fellow Canadians, if you want to do something constructive about this, there is a website set up to lobby against this bill, at http://www.digital-copyright.ca/

According to that site, there is a Member of Parliament (MP) with an interest in this issue, who presented the first petition against this bill back in April 2005 around the time the first Slashdot story broke, and a second petition in May: Peter Julian, New Democratic Party (NDP), MP Burnaby-New Westminster.

Normally, I would post this anonymously to avoid being a "karma whore", but since it's late in the day and the story has been up for a while...

The following is mentioned every time a Slashdot story is posted about Canadian copyright law, but it deserves to be repeated: fellow Canadians, if you want to do something constructive about this, there is a website set up to lobby against this bill, at http://www.digital-copyright.ca/

According to that site, there is a Member of Parliament (MP) with an interest in this issue, who presented the first petition against this bill back in April 2005 around the time the first Slashdot story broke, and a second petition in May: Peter Julian, New Democratic Party (NDP), MP Burnaby-New Westminster.

Normally, I would post this anonymously to avoid being a "karma whore", but since it's late in the day and the story has been up for a while...

The following is mentioned every time a Slashdot story is posted about Canadian copyright law, but it deserves to be repeated: fellow Canadians, if you want to do something constructive about this, there is a website set up to lobby against this bill, at http://www.digital-copyright.ca/

According to that site, there is a Member of Parliament (MP) with an interest in this issue, who presented the first petition against this bill back in April 2005 around the time the first Slashdot story broke, and a second petition in May: Peter Julian, New Democratic Party (NDP), MP Burnaby-New Westminster.

If you check out this article by Michael Geist, you can see the various parties' stances on copyright reform.

Summary:
Liberal - Middle of the road. Basically For.
NDP - For
BQ - For
Conservatives - Against
Green - Against

Very surprised particularly at the NDP and Conservatives stance. I voted Green last time in any case.

The full text of the Toronto Star article linked from the link above to avoid registration:

Parties the same? Not on tech issues
Surprising answers emerge from surveys

With much at stake, there's little debate

MICHAEL GEIST
LAW BYTES

With the federal election now just one week away, millions of voters are sizing up the national parties' positions on a wide range of issues. For those interested in technology law and policy issues -- including copyright, spam, and privacy -- the election campaign has been a disappointment as technology policy has barely registered on the election-issue radar.

While it may be understandable for technology policy to take a back seat to health care, national defence, and tax policy, an election campaign would be an ideal time to generate discussion and learn about positions on issues that typically stir debate throughout the year.

In recent weeks several groups have tried to capture the attention of the national parties and local candidates by posing questions on technology law policy and posting the responses online. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa, online at http://www.cippic.ca/ distributed a questionnaire to each national party covering key copyright policies issues including positions on music file sharing and Internet service provider liability as well as on spam, the use of open source software, and national ID cards (in the interests of full disclosure it should be noted that I am a faculty adviser to CIPPIC).

Similarly, Digital-Copyright Canada, a user and creator group, posed similar copyright questions (http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ to each local candidate across the country, while the Canadian Teachers' Federation asked each party for their views on copyright issues of concern to the education community.

With responses in hand from four of the five major political parties, different visions of Canadian technology law policy have begun to emerge.

The Liberal party sits squarely in the middle on these issues. Although the party's response speaks predominantly in generalities on copyright matters, it is revealing as much for what it says as what it does not.

First, the party pointed to the controversial blank-media levy as evidence it has worked to ensure Canada's copyright policy is modern and progressive, a surprising illustration given the opposition to the levy from a broad range of stakeholders.

Second, while the party noted the ongoing copyright reform process, it tellingly made no mention of the recent Canadian Heritage committee copyright report, perhaps seeking to distance itself from the report's recommendations. The committee, chaired by Toronto-area Liberal MP Sarmite Bulte, has drawn the ire of educators, Internet service providers, and copyright experts for adopting a one-sided perspective that fails to account for the interests of all copyright stakeholders.

Ms. Bulte herself offered a spirited endorsement of her committee's recommendations just days before the election call, concluding that the exceptions proposed by groups such as the Canadian education community to facilitate the use of the Internet within our schools was the wrong approach, characterizing such exceptions as leading to "freebies." Given the Liberal emphasis on education, its move away from Ms. Bulte's position may foreshadow a reconsideration of the recommendations should it form the new government.

The Liberal party also responde

If you check out this article by Michael Geist, you can see the various parties' stances on copyright reform.

Summary:
Liberal - Middle of the road. Basically For.
NDP - For
BQ - For
Conservatives - Against
Green - Against

Very surprised particularly at the NDP and Conservatives stance. I voted Green last time in any case.

The full text of the Toronto Star article linked from the link above to avoid registration:

Parties the same? Not on tech issues
Surprising answers emerge from surveys

With much at stake, there's little debate

MICHAEL GEIST
LAW BYTES

With the federal election now just one week away, millions of voters are sizing up the national parties' positions on a wide range of issues. For those interested in technology law and policy issues -- including copyright, spam, and privacy -- the election campaign has been a disappointment as technology policy has barely registered on the election-issue radar.

While it may be understandable for technology policy to take a back seat to health care, national defence, and tax policy, an election campaign would be an ideal time to generate discussion and learn about positions on issues that typically stir debate throughout the year.

In recent weeks several groups have tried to capture the attention of the national parties and local candidates by posing questions on technology law policy and posting the responses online. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa, online at http://www.cippic.ca/ distributed a questionnaire to each national party covering key copyright policies issues including positions on music file sharing and Internet service provider liability as well as on spam, the use of open source software, and national ID cards (in the interests of full disclosure it should be noted that I am a faculty adviser to CIPPIC).

Similarly, Digital-Copyright Canada, a user and creator group, posed similar copyright questions (http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ to each local candidate across the country, while the Canadian Teachers' Federation asked each party for their views on copyright issues of concern to the education community.

With responses in hand from four of the five major political parties, different visions of Canadian technology law policy have begun to emerge.

The Liberal party sits squarely in the middle on these issues. Although the party's response speaks predominantly in generalities on copyright matters, it is revealing as much for what it says as what it does not.

First, the party pointed to the controversial blank-media levy as evidence it has worked to ensure Canada's copyright policy is modern and progressive, a surprising illustration given the opposition to the levy from a broad range of stakeholders.

Second, while the party noted the ongoing copyright reform process, it tellingly made no mention of the recent Canadian Heritage committee copyright report, perhaps seeking to distance itself from the report's recommendations. The committee, chaired by Toronto-area Liberal MP Sarmite Bulte, has drawn the ire of educators, Internet service providers, and copyright experts for adopting a one-sided perspective that fails to account for the interests of all copyright stakeholders.

Ms. Bulte herself offered a spirited endorsement of her committee's recommendations just days before the election call, concluding that the exceptions proposed by groups such as the Canadian education community to facilitate the use of the Internet within our schools was the wrong approach, characterizing such exceptions as leading to "freebies." Given the Liberal emphasis on education, its move away from Ms. Bulte's position may foreshadow a reconsideration of the recommendations should it form the new government.

The Liberal party also responde

And sign the petition. This site originally started as anti-DMCA in Canada and that's still the basic idea. But yes, definitely get in contact with your MP.

I've been working pretty hard against this for years. I have phoned up my government representative and tried to talk to them about the issue but realistically, people in government do not understand the issue and are voting blindly. I have documented the proposed changes to law in this Q and A (no surprise, the background is in US legislation). There was a lot of interest from concerned Canadians, including a petition (with thousands of signatures).

Personally, I will never again buy music or media that originates from an artist under the membership of one of the industry associations (CRIA, RIAA, MPAA) that has lobbied governments and fooled our politicans. From now on it's rentals and second-used (used) media only for me. Please help keep your money out of the hands of these associations; they are already dying, let's finish them off.

I will not shed a tear for them. These ridiculous laws are not in the best interest of citizens or consumers, at all. You can't convince me otherwise no matter how you spin it.

And well you should find out where the parties stand on these issues before you vote later this year or early next. Check out detailed official party positions as of Election 2004 (they haven't changed much since) or read a Toronto Star summary on their stances.

Your local MP will soon be campaigning for your vote or seeking a nomination in your riding. Grill them on their position on Copyright, Open Source Software, and User Rights issues. This is an issue that has been virtually ignored, the fact is that most candidates know little about it and may alarmingly vote on complex IP legislation merely along party lines. Write them.

digital-copyright.ca is a meeting place for people concerned about this. The Petition for User Rights was presented to parliament recently. The mailing list is active, with draft letters, media analysis, etc.

digital-copyright.ca is a meeting place for people concerned about this. The Petition for User Rights was presented to parliament recently. The mailing list is active, with draft letters, media analysis, etc.

digital-copyright.ca is a meeting place for people concerned about this. The Petition for User Rights was presented to parliament recently. The mailing list is active, with draft letters, media analysis, etc.