Slashdot Mirror

The Copyright Act 1985 c-42 Canada is available here. It's been amended a few times (latest, April 2003) but those changes have little bearing on the slashdot subject. Users with little time want to check out Part VIII, Private Copying; and in particular Section 80; Copying for Private Use.

Some comments on the discussion so far:
The Recording Industry Association of America represents US record companies. They don't now, and never have, anything to do with Canada or any other country.

The RIAA is a member of the IFPI, which represents the recording industry worldwide. Their website has a great link called "Anti-Piracy" and a defintion under What is Piracy? Please note the definition has not a word about dowloading, or copying a buddy's CD, but instead refers to what the RIAA tends to call Counterfeiting.

The Canadian Recording Industry Association (CIRA) is the body which represents the industry in Canada. They are the equivalent to the RIAA in that country and if anyone was suing anybody in Canada, they would be doing it, not the RIAA. Ever.

Uploading music is completely illegal in Canada, as is allowing it to be shared. CIRA can and probably will sue anyone who does it, and they will win. Damages, on the other hand, won't be even close to the numbers the US courts give out, which probably explains why they're not hiring a floorful of lawyers about it, so far.

What the Copyright Act allows, is the copying, for personal use, of music from any source. So, downloading is fine, as is borrowing the CD from the public library (most Canadian libraries have extensive music collections available) or a buddy, or any other source you can imagine. There are no restricitons, of any kind, on the source of the music you use to create a copy.

Steal a disk and copy it; the crime remains the theft of a $20 disk, not the copying of that "illegal" disk.

The restriction is only the person making the copy has any right to use it. You cannot lend, give away, or otherwise distribute a Personal Copy made under authorization of Section 80.

Thus, allowing your mp3s to be available to others via a shared drive or network is against the law in Canada, as is making a disk and giving it to Grandma for Christmas. Granny has to run her own burner. And moving to Canada would not protect any of those who the RIAA has sued recently; what they do is still against the law north of 49.

The US media, especially the RIAA, has done a great job of marketing their message worldwide, not just in their jurisdiction. Thus, almost every Canadian (and absolutely every journalist; lazy no check-facting idiots that they are) is completely unaware of the Act, or how it applies to copying. They all think it's illegal to burn CDs in Canada.

Does Canada have a founding document as potent as the US Constitution or are they still bent over for the Queen?

Arguably more potent, since it was enacted in 1982. People have had over two centuries to erode the fundamental rights guaranteed by the US Constitution. Here is a link to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Slashdot readers will be particularily interested in the following clauses : 2, 7, 8 & 9.

I would like to draw special attention to clauses 15 and 26.

15. Every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to the equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination and, in particular, without discrimination based on race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disability.

26. The guarantee in this Charter of certain rights and freedoms shall not be construed as denying the existence of any other rights or freedoms that exist in Canada.

I would like to direct your attention to the Private Copying section of the Canadian Copyright act here.

Specifically, 80.2(c) -- Subsection (1) [the private copying exception] does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following : (c) communicating to the public by telecommunication;

In order for file sharing as we know it to be legal, you would have to make the argument that putting something up on Kazaa is NOT communicating to the public by telecommunications.

I'm not saying it can't be done (indeed, I don't belive any of this has ever actually been tested in court), but good fucking luck.

Something like dc++ with a private hub between friends would be a much less challenging scenario to argue, as the general public isn't involved.

Note that the intent of this law was that people would be able to share music (note that this ONLY applies to MUSICAL AUDIO RECORDINGS -- spoken word recordings, or even sound effect recordings (and certainly not video) aren't covered by this) with thier family and friends without it being illegal. Basically, they looked at the fact that most people would be considered criminals under the current laws, and decided that there's really no point in that, and used the situation as an excuse to find another way for the goverenment to get money out of people. But since you're Canadian, you're used to that by now.

Kazaa and such are not for that purpose -- they are intended to share music with the anonymous internet in exchange for getting music you want back from the anonymous interent. If you ever wind up in court, and try and defend yourself with this exception, the intent of the law is going to be taken into account by the judge.

Canada will only allow extradition if the act is considered a crime in Canada.
See Canadian Extradition Act

80. (1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of

(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,

(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or

(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied

onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):

(a) selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;

(b) distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;

(c) communicating to the public by telecommunication; or

(d) performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

Although most cases in Canada are tried by judges without a jury, the Charter states that any person who is charged with a criminal offence for which there can be a prison sentence of five years or more has the right to a trial by jury. In some cases, a person who is charged with a criminal offence for which there can be a prison sentence of less than five years may have a right to choose a trial by jury. In some jurisdictions, some civil cases can also be tried by judge and jury.

Actually if you read the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms you'll notice that where the Americans believed in "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness", the Canadians wrote "life, liberty and security of the person".

This is, in many ways, a fundamental concept of socialism. In political thought, the debate between the weighted merits of positive and negative freedoms is seen as elementary and fundamental in law. In Canada, I'm happy to say (as a Canadian) that our judiciary has more often than not interpreted the Charter in such a way so as when ruling on laws that affect the individual only they err on the side of liberty. At the same time, they understand the concept of the "greater social good" and so work to protect society as a whole and, in particular, those who are at the bottom rungs of the economic and social scale.

I think it's an excellent country that has really gotten it "right".

Responsibilities were devolved from London to Ottawa and the provinces throughout the late 19th century and early 20th century. In 1931, the Statute of Westminster (UK) was enacted whereby the Parliament of the UK renounced administrative responsibility for Canada, Newfoundland (and Labrador), South Africa, Australia & New Zealand. Canadians were still British subjects.

In 1947, the Supreme Court of Canada was established (which meant no more appeals to the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council (UK)[Independent Judiciary]) and Canadian Citizenship was established.

In 1960, the Canadian Bill of Rights was passed giving Canadians essentially the same rights as Americans and it just basically codified what rights already existed.

In 1982, the Canada Act, 1982 UK, and Constitution Act, 1982 as well as the Charter of Rights & Freedoms were passed in the UK and Canadian Parliaments simultaneously and at that point Canada became fully independent. The Queen is still our head of state. She appears on the money and visits now and then, but she exerts no influence on the government. If anything, the governments tell her what to do, re appointing Judges, Senators, Governor-General, Lieutennant-Governors.

With the UK and to a lesser extent France, the US has had a major influence on how our country has developed (ie federal system, codified constitution. I hope you find it useful. About using the adjective Unitedstatesian, it is silly. Stick to Americans. It sounds better and after a nearly a quarter of a millenium, it's too late to change.

> Glad I'm a canadian, proud and free

That's OK, two out of three ain't bad...

IANAL, but here's Canada's patent act.

Interesting sections:

27(8) No patent shall be granted for any mere scientific principle or abstract theorem.

>Prove that Canadian law does not allow a patent on "a computing device, with means for memory, input, and output, programmed to perform the following steps: (description of LZW follows)".

No point, because then it would only cover that device. For example, let's say it convered palm pilots using this neato LZW method. No worries, I can still use it on my computer.

I doubt Canadian patent law would allow such a broad definition as "Any device using this method". Because that's what it would have to be to encompass everything the LZW patent already does.

And just because it is patented here doesn't mean the patent isn't contestable. The only patent I could find (mentioned at this informative site) on software was contested and the patent nullified.

How'd I do? ;-)

I wrote a letter to the record label after I ran into the first CD (Radiohead's Hail to the Thief) that wouldn't play in the player I wanted, and have now stopped buying any CDs from that label (EMI). In fact, only 1 of the computers I tried it in even could read the data files that allowed you to install the audio player. Since said players are only available for windows and some versions of Apple operating systems, and only installable if you have admin on your computer (making it less than ideal in an office environment) I am allowed under Canadian "fair dealing" rights (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/38266.html#rid- 38379) to copy from audio CD to "a recording medium, regardless of its material form, onto which a sound recording may be reproduced and that is ordinarily used by individual consumers for that purpose..". Ie, a computer hard drive, or another CD. This is similar to the fair use rights in the United States.

Unless everyone writes a letter at the least, then it's only a matter of time before every CD will work only in stereos and on machines which have specific versions of software like Windows.

I should add that the CD in question would play on Windows only if you installed "upgrades" to windows media player... I cancelled that, and am ripping it with a line in feed tonight.

You're misinformed.

The merchant can refuse (not "deny") to accept cash, if they want. They can insist on being paid via debit, credit card, or gold bullion, if they wish. They don't have to accept cash.

It's not that they are "allowed" to refuse payment of more than $1 in pennies, because they are "allowed" to refuse payment of ANY amount, in ANY denomination, if they want.

The rule you're thinking of is the 'Limitations' section of the Currency Act, bill C-52, Section 8(2), subsections (a) through (e). This section states that it is illegal for merchants to accept payment for transactions exceeding 25 cents (not $1, as you incorrectly stated) if the denomination is pennies. It's all spelled out right here.

Don't claim you've "read the law," then offer such grossly inaccurate information.

However based on what I read about many contries[sic], it's been established that you don't own a copy of the song to do with as you please, but rather you own the media but not the contents, making it illegal to make a copy (aka a backup) for use in other media players.

Just as point of note: in Canada, it is legal under the Copyright Act to not only make copies of your own music for personal use, but also to borrow and make copies of a friend's music for your personal use.

From section 80 of the copyright act:

1. Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
   1. a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
   2. a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
   3. a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
   onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
2. Subsection (1) does not apply if the act described in that subsection is done for the purpose of doing any of the following in relation to any of the things referred to in paragraphs (1)(a) to (c):
   1. selling or renting out, or by way of trade exposing or offering for sale or rental;
   2. distributing, whether or not for the purpose of trade;
   3. communicating to the public by telecommunication; or
   4. performing, or causing to be performed, in public.

Just for anyone who still doubts (there are a few), I think it's important to know what rights you have in this age of 'land of liberty' rights being stripped away. Incidentally, this is one of the things the levy on writable media funds, so next time you feel like complaining about $0.29 on your CD-R, just go out and rip a friend's music collection in 'protest'.

--Dan

The Government of Canada is creating a new offence targeting those who would set traps in a any place under section 247 of the Criminal Code. The Government of Canada is creating a new offence targeting those who would set traps in a place used for a criminal purpose and intending to cause injury or death.

One of our government departments asked for express permission to monitor private communications (see Comments on Specific Provisions of Bill C-36) which could be invoked as part of some ammendments post 9-11. Now there is a bill before Parliament to ammend the criminal code to clarify the role of IDS (and by extension one would think, honeypots). Ironically it's the same bill that will deal with the boobytrapped pothouse law.

Under our criminal code, currently, "Every one who, by means of any electromagnetic, acoustic, mechanical or other device, wilfully intercepts a private communication is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years."

The amendment would create exceptions to the offences of intercepting a private communication and of disclosing its content to ensure quality control in the communications industry. A proposed amendment to the Financial Administration Act (section 161) will ensure that federal departments and agencies may take reasonable measures to manage and protect their computer systems, which may include the interception of private communications.

In order to protect the privacy of persons in Canada, limits would be imposed and use of information intercepted by private IDS systems will be controlled under the Criminal Code.

For example, it is questionable as to whether in email, users have an expectation of privacy. Consider an IDS that captures full packet content. Is it interception of private communications? It could be as simple as setting the correct snaplen in your Snort rule :)

Where I have a problem with this is that a honeypot, by definition, shouldn't have any legitimate use. So how can it be interception of private communications (with what)? Of course this would vary with the statutes in that jusidiction.

When it comes to the liability issues, Honeypots should never be deployed without monitoring outgoing activities. It is likely an obligatory duty of due care to other fellow netizens to not knowingly leave a vulnerable machine out there that could be used to attack other machines. I can see a definite liability issue there of opening up a few shares and walking away for a few months without checking.

IANAL, but AFAIC the safest way is to adapt an explicit policy that individual communications will be monitored as a matter of course in aggregate for suspicious activity, which will be reported to authorities. One might be able to ensure to the best of their abilities that this warning is seen by implementing klaxon that returns a warning to this effect on all unserved ports on your honeypot. Always monitor the honeypot and have reasonably documented procedures on what you plan to do when it gets hacked to minimize damage to your neighbours.

B

> In Canada, it's illegal to pay for any good or service, with more than 25 of any given denomination.

What he's talking about can be found in Section 8 of the Currency Act.

Basically it is a no-nuisance law to stop people from doing things like pay fines using pennies. It doesn't say the money can be confiscated...

Many businesses will still except coins if they have been rolled. I know I have paid for movie tickes and extra value meals with rolls of nickles and dimes.

From the statute:

(2) A payment in coins referred to in subsection (1) is a legal tender for no more than the following amounts for the following denominations of coins:

1. forty dollars if the denomination is two dollars or greater but does not exceed ten dollars;
2. twenty-five dollars if the denomination is one dollar;
3. ten dollars if the denomination is ten cents or greater but less than one dollar;
4. five dollars if the denomination is five cents; and
5. twenty-five cents if the denomination is one cent.

-
Rod (Canadian)

In Canada you can copy a CD legally for "personal use"

Correct. The Copyright Act 1985 states flatly that you can make a copy (on any medium) of any musical recording for personal use. You do not even need to own the recording. In fact, it specifically legalizes personal recordings of someone else's copy of a musical work (according to the Copyright Board).

Here's the legal reference. Check out this interpretation of the current law.

For example, it is illegal to grab a song from a P2P network and save it to my harddrive or a CD, as you cannot make a copy for yourself and a "friend".

However, simply ripping or making a verbatim copy of a CD for your own personal use is a right for all Canadian citizens.

(2) Subsection (1) does not apply to a private communication or to a communication intended to be private.

You appear to have answered you own question. You can say you hate anyone for any reason...this law does not stop that and, as indicated above, actually says it does not apply in that situation.

But you can't publish it. Publish means flyers, leaflets, newspapers (other than letters to the editor), videos etc (and possibly web sites, but this has never been tested...and likely never will since most ISP have their own rules about this ans would teminate your service).

This law is a direct result of the various trials in Toronto of Holocaust denier Ernst Zundel, who was formerly procecuted under an old law for "knowingly spreading false news". The law is not meant to stiffle free expresion of opinions, but to prevent propoganda that incits violence and hatred against identifiable groups and minorities (or even women, who in Canada are a minority of 52% of the populace). You should have provided a link to the purposes of the act. BTW, even if this was challenged, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms would prevail.

BTW, the law you've quoted is the Human Rights Code of the Province of British Columbia from 1996. It does not apply to all of Canada nor is it a criminal law.It applies only in the province of BC. This law is a private law sanction requiring an individual or group to file a complaint with the provincial human rights commission for investigation within 1 year of the incident. Therefore there is no prior restraint of an individuals actions. This act also has nothing to do with or no affect on the University of Toronto, which is a different province!

Canada Customs has been quite "overzealous" in it's holding up of shipments of various forms of "porn" (gay literature, occasionally some pro-choice literature, and, of course, the kooks from the aynrand institute), but the information has almost always get through (as in the case you quoted).

In other words, no-one's liberty was taken away without due process of law...perhaps we could ask some of the prisoners at Gitmo or Jose Padilla and his ilk about due process, habeous corpus and fair trails, if we or their lawyers were allowed to meet with them.

As for displaying swastikas publicly, you've clearly never been to Toronto when the Heritage Front or when the Church of the Creator/George Burti and those pin heads are marching.

Canada may not be perfect, but it does a hell of a lot more for individual and group liberties and rights than is the current norm in the US. And next time, please at least get you facts straight before spreading your right-wing, libertarian, Ayn Rand-ish FUD. :)

Wait- we're the ones ... With a Bill of Rights.

We have the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

1. Set up a honeypot.
2. Make sure the content looks "illegal" but, in fact, is not
(i.e., MP3 files named for popular songs but containing only commentary on them).
3. Get hit.
4. Sue for damages.
5. Profit!

OK, joking aside, in most countries, even accessing a computer without authorization is illegal.

The Canadian criminal code forbids it (look here for a longer version).
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 47, Sec. 1030 of the US code also looks applicable (but IANAL so if somebody who IAL reads this, please comment).

So, with the law on your side, you can also sue them in a small claims court. That way, they cannot use their financial advantage to subvert justice.

1. Set up a honeypot.
2. Make sure the content looks "illegal" but, in fact, is not
(i.e., MP3 files named for popular songs but containing only commentary on them).
3. Get hit.
4. Sue for damages.
5. Profit!

OK, joking aside, in most countries, even accessing a computer without authorization is illegal.

The Canadian criminal code forbids it (look here for a longer version).
TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 47, Sec. 1030 of the US code also looks applicable (but IANAL so if somebody who IAL reads this, please comment).

So, with the law on your side, you can also sue them in a small claims court. That way, they cannot use their financial advantage to subvert justice.

At least, that's how it would go down in a civilized nation. Don't know how it would go down in Canada.

Need I remind you that last year the capital of your "civilized nation" alone has a murder rate nearly 48 times that of my entire nation -> Washington DC, 48.5 murders per 100 000 people, compared to the entire country of Canada, 1.78 murders per 100 000 people. Also of note from Stats Canada on murders involving guns:

"Of the 171 firearm-related homicides, 110 were committed with a handgun, 46 with a rifle or shotgun, 7 with a sawed-off rifle or shotgun, 3 with a fully automatic firearm, and 5 with another type of firearm.

Handguns were used in 65% of all firearm homicides. This proportion has risen from 46% in 1998 as a result of the continuing decline in the number of homicides involving rifles or shotguns."

That's out of 554 total murders in the entire country of 32 million during 2001. Compare that to Los Angeles, with 658 murders in the same time, but with 1/3 the population.

In the "civilized nation" 65.6%of all the murders were committed with a firearm during the same time.

Hmmmm, perhaps there are some people who are "too stupid to have a gun".

Say what you will about "mummy government", I am quite safe from gun violence here as are my children. That is, after all, why I elected my governement - to ensure my life, liberty and security of the person.

If all you have protecting you from sending ammo clips through the mail is a minimum wage postal clerk, then you have the country you deserve... :)

reproducing all or any substantial part of... a musical work embodied in a sound recording... onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement.

Canadian, eh? You already pay a tax on blank media (including the iPod IIRC), so making a copy of a song for yourself is not copyright infringement.

Ah my work is never done. I've already covered this before.

You and your brethren play around with words while missing the spirit behind it all. What we call it isn't inportant. What our intent and actions say is far more important[1]. Last time I checked Canada did have a copyright law. Just because there's a tax doesn't invalidate that body of law. If you don't like those laws, just like in the US you can change them. Are you doing anything to change them? Obviously you've refused to have in your possession, now and in the future any copyrighted material from those you disagree with.

[1] Oh! and the law looks at results of said actions as well.

Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

... and start doing data backups on VHS ...

I could be wrong, but I think VHS tapes face the same type of levy as CR-Rs and any other blank medium. I believe the Copyright Act allows any forms of blank media to be subject to a levy. At least audio media.

Either way, we're hosed.

... and start doing data backups on VHS ...

I could be wrong, but I think VHS tapes face the same type of levy as CR-Rs and any other blank medium. I believe the Copyright Act allows any forms of blank media to be subject to a levy. At least audio media.

Either way, we're hosed.

I.11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal

I.11. Any person charged with an offence has the right

(d) to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal

Would I be right in assuming that this basically means that all composers who sign contracts with U.S. companies are now no more than indentured servants who will never be able to own the rights to their own creations unless they become rich enough to buy back the copyright on their work from the record companies? I realize that it was basically this way before, but now it seems the record companies have unlimited control.

Would any artist in their right mind ever sign with a U.S. label again? Why not just find a label in a country with much saner copyright laws, say... Canada? Seriously, if enough artists get pissed and just bypass American media corporations altogether, this could be the beginning of the downfall of the U.S. corporations control of the music industry. This idea could work for other types of artists as well, such as screenwriters.

Then again, musicians could just self-publish their work and retain their copyright fromt he beginning.

Is this idea naive? Yes. Is it unrealistic? Yes. Could it ever work? Probably not, but I'm not quite so jaded as to give up hope.

Does anybody know what copyright period is in Canana?

Yes, Life plus 50.

>Surely you've heard of "theft of services"? Such as tapping into cable TV?

Yes. I have heard of that. But, AFAIK, that isn't what the plaintiff is charged with. I can't help it if newspapers use the wrong language. If I was to listen to newspapers, hackers would be people who like to crack into military bases to see how many nukes they can launch at the white house.

>Also, why *are* you so concerned with distinguishing theft from copyright infringment?
>Do you think one is a crime and the other not?

Yes. And so did my country until a few months ago. Technically, 10% of all Canadians are now liable for thousands of dollars of charges and years of jail time, but the RCMP has (intelligently) decided not to raise a public uproar by filling the courts with another 3 million cases overnight.

>Even if you were right, you would have no defense in either civil or criminal court.

No. Well, no until a few months ago. Let me explain something to you, something you'll find very interesting:

Piracy, or copyright violation, or "theft of service" (*ugggh*) of American television in Canada was legal and well supported here in Canada until a few months ago. There were many brick and mortar stores in my city alone selling pirate equiment to anyone who walks in (Police, RCMP, CSIS, CRTC, it didn't matter). If copyright violation were theft these stores would have been shut down before you can say "Oh crap!". But because it ain't, they couldn't. That's the number 1 reason why I have a problem against the misnomer that is "theft of services".

I won't get into the morality of the above unless you choose to bring it up.

>FWIW I *am* a lawyer, and you'd have trouble finding even a first-year law student who'd not agree.

Excellent, a lawyer. In that case you'll enjoy reading the Radio Communications act of Canada, paragraph 9(1)(c). Let me know if you can find the word theft there. I hope our country's case helps clear the air on why copyright violation isn't theft.

Thanks.

And if you're wondering why it's now illegal for Canadians to watch American satellite signals, it's because the Supreme Court re-read the word "authorized" to mean authorized in any country in the world, not just Canada, on the strong impetus of Bell ExpressVu, LLC, who have been losing money on their service since day one not due to piracy, but due to lack of sales caused by piracy of American signals.

I suppose there's a chance you guys have a completely differeny set of copyright laws, infact a totally different set of laws on everything, God knows what they could be after the DMCA, patriot act, and homeland security act.

>Oh, and the gold-fringed flag thing is a hallucination. I worked for one of these alleged military courts, and believe me it ain't so. You'll assume I'm the part of a conspiracy, but I challenge you to find any legal authority for your claim.

Hey man, I said, I'm not American. I trust your courts aren't as the (many) webpages lead me to believe. But, the truth is, it doesn't matter much (to me), since I doubt I'll ever be tried in one (thank God, again).

Ever hear of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms?

. 2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.

I can publish / say anything I damn well want.

You are all missing the point. The argument I've presented is exactly that proposed by governments around the world, case in point: Canadian Government's Lawful Access Consultation Document.

That being said, the fact is, whether or not you choose to believe it, that criminals, terrorists, etc etc are using new technologies to communicate and legislation for the new techologies tends to lag behind that for existing and well established technologies such as POTS. Governents know this, and legislation such as CALEA seek to bridge that gap. What we need to be vigilant about is to ensure that mistakes made in existing legislation are not propagated for the new.

We must ensure that civil liberties and human rights are maintained while allowing law enforcement to protect the rights of the people. Retaining logs at the ISP level does not equate with disclosing logs to law enforcement agencies. I don't know what legal hoops LEAs in the UK must jump through to arrange disclosure, but there are legal tests that must take place and judicial involvement to ensure that the rights of the "person of interest" are maintained.

Those of you modding my original comment down, or refusing to mod it up because you don't like what I said despite it being informative (it is, if you don't think that is the stance that government is taking and their publicly stated perspective, then you are fooling yourself), you should check your assumptions and think very hard on whether you are capable of thinking objectively. Information which is distasteful to you can be just as valid and informative as that which coincides with your world view. Think outside the box, try devil's advocacy some time, you might find it opens your mind so you are actually thinking, not just regurgitating what you've been taught.

Thank you! A voice of reason!

My own concern is not how GOL will be used by government (spelled out by the Privacy Act), but the potential for abuse by third parties. PKI systems are no panacea, but done right, offer assurances at least as good as what we currently have. I say bravo for my government taking this bold step.

I'm off to get mine right now - I'm keen to see what kind of certificate I'll be issued

As such, you might want to consider familiarizing yourself with our system of rights and freedoms, including The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Technically speaking, we don't have any "first amendment" rights TO be eroded.

We do, however, have the right to, "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication," under section 2(b) of the Charter.

Also, being Canadian citizens, we are not bound by the DMCA. We are bound by The Criminal Code of Canada, and, as relates to copyright infringement, The Copyright Act.

As such, civil disobedience against the DMCA would (sadly) be a wasted effort for those of us north of the US-Canada border. About the best we can do from up here is to donate to the EFF, and hope they make a difference.

Anyway, despite my being anal about the differences between US and Canadian law, it was a good post. =)

As such, you might want to consider familiarizing yourself with our system of rights and freedoms, including The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Technically speaking, we don't have any "first amendment" rights TO be eroded.

We do, however, have the right to, "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication," under section 2(b) of the Charter.

Also, being Canadian citizens, we are not bound by the DMCA. We are bound by The Criminal Code of Canada, and, as relates to copyright infringement, The Copyright Act.

As such, civil disobedience against the DMCA would (sadly) be a wasted effort for those of us north of the US-Canada border. About the best we can do from up here is to donate to the EFF, and hope they make a difference.

Anyway, despite my being anal about the differences between US and Canadian law, it was a good post. =)

As such, you might want to consider familiarizing yourself with our system of rights and freedoms, including The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Technically speaking, we don't have any "first amendment" rights TO be eroded.

We do, however, have the right to, "freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication," under section 2(b) of the Charter.

Also, being Canadian citizens, we are not bound by the DMCA. We are bound by The Criminal Code of Canada, and, as relates to copyright infringement, The Copyright Act.

As such, civil disobedience against the DMCA would (sadly) be a wasted effort for those of us north of the US-Canada border. About the best we can do from up here is to donate to the EFF, and hope they make a difference.

Anyway, despite my being anal about the differences between US and Canadian law, it was a good post. =)

Copyright laws are not about phyiscal properity, they are about the control of distribution of their "intellectual" material in a fixed medium such as words on a page or a magnetic cassette recording of a musical performance.

The book or DVD disc is almost an accidential artifact that is no ways embodies copyright control.

With a book, the first sale doctrine, allows you to own the physical artifact of the paper and binding, and allows you to resell that single copy of it. It does not give you permission to alter the contents, or produce a reproduction.

Maybe I am wrong here, but I take it CleanFlicks produces a new DVD of the modified content, which in my lay understanding is an unauthorized reproduction of the copyrighted contents. It is not a backup copy because the contents are modified by CleanFlicks, so the exemptions for archival purposes are not relevant.

The reproduced contents are altered which makes it a derived work (reproduce, adapt and publicly present a work by cinematograph, that uses a substantial portion (i.e. the vast majority) of the original creator's content. This should fall under the copyright owner/creator's copyright control.

Lastly it violates the copyright creator's moral right (only creators not owners have moral right, at least in some countries).

I'm fairly dissapointed at the level of apathy. Americans don't seem to care, at least relatively. Canadian's don't seem to care much (are we really this apathetic?). There are a number of problems with the consultation process that nobody is noticing.

There is no mention of safe harbour. Does this mean that an ISP forced to release data is subject to a civil suit for privacy violation?

Why is the consultation process so short? It seems like Justice is trying to ram this through. It also smells like the laws are already drafted, and after an obligatory lip-service "consultation process", they will get tabled. And industry and civil liberties will get ignored just as they were with Bill C-15a. In an of itself, it is a noble cause to fight child exploitation. However, it is dangerous when laws aimed at doing so also try to turn ISPs into content watchdogs.

Who will bear the costs? Will Canadian industry be forced to pay for a Canadian equivalent of Carnivore?

The paper doesn't provide much detail on making your views known as a private citizen. It is geared towards industry associations such as CAIP and the CCTA, civil liberties groups, etc. Notice the emphasis on "group". God forbid the average citizen should be listened to...

At any rate, the news release on this matter includes the email address the DoJ wants submissions sent to:

Those wishing to respond may send their submissions to la-al@justice.gc.ca before November 15, 2002.

The paper doesn't provide much detail on making your views known as a private citizen. It is geared towards industry associations such as CAIP and the CCTA, civil liberties groups, etc. Notice the emphasis on "group". God forbid the average citizen should be listened to...

At any rate, the news release on this matter includes the email address the DoJ wants submissions sent to:

Those wishing to respond may send their submissions to la-al@justice.gc.ca before November 15, 2002.

The deadline for feedback is November 15, 2002.

Can I claim "First worthwhile post"?

I'm going to ignore comments thus far as generally just not representative of Slashdotters, most of whom can find Canada on a map.

This story is a duplicate post on Slashdot, but parts of the story haven't really been covered yet: additional links are to be found in this story, which you can follow to find out more info on the issue, including some sample response from Canadian ISPs, one of which I represent. We're also CAIP members and I can tell you that the only comments I've seen on the members' mailing list so far are all negative, so you can probably expect resistance on our part, as the stories linked indicate. Any Canadian Slashdotters (believe it or not, not everyone here is American - I wonder if there are any geographical /. stats?) should make their views known now during the process leading up to the draft of the law that will result following the consultation process. Unfortunately the document as far as I've read it does not describe a process for doing so as an individual, but it does Identify the three government agencies involved, and industrious persons can probably take it from there.

Contrary to one informationally-ignorant prior post, as Canadians we do have Rights and Freedoms, and as in every other country (yes, including the USA) sometimes we need to speak up to exercise them and make sure that they aren't clawed back from us.

-brt

Can I claim "First worthwhile post"?

I'm going to ignore comments thus far as generally just not representative of Slashdotters, most of whom can find Canada on a map.

This story is a duplicate post on Slashdot, but parts of the story haven't really been covered yet: additional links are to be found in this story, which you can follow to find out more info on the issue, including some sample response from Canadian ISPs, one of which I represent. We're also CAIP members and I can tell you that the only comments I've seen on the members' mailing list so far are all negative, so you can probably expect resistance on our part, as the stories linked indicate. Any Canadian Slashdotters (believe it or not, not everyone here is American - I wonder if there are any geographical /. stats?) should make their views known now during the process leading up to the draft of the law that will result following the consultation process. Unfortunately the document as far as I've read it does not describe a process for doing so as an individual, but it does Identify the three government agencies involved, and industrious persons can probably take it from there.

Contrary to one informationally-ignorant prior post, as Canadians we do have Rights and Freedoms, and as in every other country (yes, including the USA) sometimes we need to speak up to exercise them and make sure that they aren't clawed back from us.

-brt

I know that post doesn't warrant a response but I have a feeling that there are many people out there who don't know much about Canada.

Canada has something called the Charter of Rights and Freedoms which guarrantees their basic liberties.

It does not mention anything about the right to own a gun, but why should it?

If you actually read the proposal, in cases where there might be some sort of privacy issues, it is repeatedly stated that the Canadian Charter of Right and Freedoms should be upheld. There are some scary statements in the proposal, but these are for the most part worst-case hypothetical cases.

The main issue that seems to be brought up is the preservation of data. According to the proposal, what this means is that an ISP will have to maintain data on a specified customer once it has been brought to their attention by law enforcement that an investigation is underway. This applies to the specified customer only and only once the ISP has been informed that one of their customers is being investigated, so there's no need for the Big Brother fear-mongering just yet.

Anyone interested can find the entire proposal here.

Before you write, read. Read the whole discuss paper. The paper covers many different areas not covered in the news article. Some parts, such as the intercept proposals, aren't acceptable. Other parts of the paper make a lot of sense.

For example read the section on Interception of Email. The gist of this section is that email interception can and has fallen under two conflicting sections of the Criminal Code. In some cases a judge ruled that the email was a private communication and subject to those laws. In another case a judge ruled that email was subject to the less onerous search and seizure laws. The criminal code is not clear on the matter. So the discussion paper simply asks 3 questions:

* should there be a specific provision in the Criminal Code in relation to how an e-mail should be acquired?

* if such a provision should be included, what kind of procedural safeguards should be imposed?

* should the type of order to be obtained in order to acquire an e-mail vary depending on the stage of the communication or delivery process?

These are three important questions! How do you want your email protected under the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The Dept of Justice is asking for your inpupt on these and other important questions regarding your privacy.

Read the whole paper and send send in your opinions. You do not need to comment on all sections. Specify which section your comments reference. Be clear. Check your spelling (unlike me). Check your grammar. Reread what your wrote. Wait a day after writeing before sending (from some sober second thought).

Before you write, read. Read the whole discuss paper. The paper covers many different areas not covered in the news article. Some parts, such as the intercept proposals, aren't acceptable. Other parts of the paper make a lot of sense.

For example read the section on Interception of Email. The gist of this section is that email interception can and has fallen under two conflicting sections of the Criminal Code. In some cases a judge ruled that the email was a private communication and subject to those laws. In another case a judge ruled that email was subject to the less onerous search and seizure laws. The criminal code is not clear on the matter. So the discussion paper simply asks 3 questions:

* should there be a specific provision in the Criminal Code in relation to how an e-mail should be acquired?

* if such a provision should be included, what kind of procedural safeguards should be imposed?

* should the type of order to be obtained in order to acquire an e-mail vary depending on the stage of the communication or delivery process?

These are three important questions! How do you want your email protected under the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The Dept of Justice is asking for your inpupt on these and other important questions regarding your privacy.

Read the whole paper and send send in your opinions. You do not need to comment on all sections. Specify which section your comments reference. Be clear. Check your spelling (unlike me). Check your grammar. Reread what your wrote. Wait a day after writeing before sending (from some sober second thought).

Before you write, read. Read the whole discuss paper. The paper covers many different areas not covered in the news article. Some parts, such as the intercept proposals, aren't acceptable. Other parts of the paper make a lot of sense.

For example read the section on Interception of Email. The gist of this section is that email interception can and has fallen under two conflicting sections of the Criminal Code. In some cases a judge ruled that the email was a private communication and subject to those laws. In another case a judge ruled that email was subject to the less onerous search and seizure laws. The criminal code is not clear on the matter. So the discussion paper simply asks 3 questions:

* should there be a specific provision in the Criminal Code in relation to how an e-mail should be acquired?

* if such a provision should be included, what kind of procedural safeguards should be imposed?

* should the type of order to be obtained in order to acquire an e-mail vary depending on the stage of the communication or delivery process?

These are three important questions! How do you want your email protected under the Criminal Code and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? The Dept of Justice is asking for your inpupt on these and other important questions regarding your privacy.

Read the whole paper and send send in your opinions. You do not need to comment on all sections. Specify which section your comments reference. Be clear. Check your spelling (unlike me). Check your grammar. Reread what your wrote. Wait a day after writeing before sending (from some sober second thought).