Slashdot Mirror

But who exactly demanded the DMCA-like policies?

Good question, my first instinct was to blame Bev Oda and her unrivalled industry access. But she's not even on the committee!

What's also scary here is that, although chaired by a Conservative (from Alberta too), the committee is made up of members from all parties. Have a look at the list, there're Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois in there: I have trouble believing someone from the Bloc would go along with this. Do none of them bother to turn up to committee meetings, does everyone just fall asleep and let the chair do all the work, or is this just a horrible case of group think?!

Either way, our legislature needs some education. Time to get letter writing!

The complexity is much more difficult than that. Encrypted p2p, encrypted files, encrypted VOIP (Skype), SSH, and so on. And how can they tell a single large encrypted torrent from a dozen smaller encrypted torrents?
Simple, they degrade/block all encrypted traffic. A big ISP in Canada has already started doing this.
Rogers Fights BitTorrent by Throttling All Encrypted Transfers
Rogers Must Come Clean on Traffic Shaping

What the industry wanted was a DCMA type act in Canada. They didn't get that and they won't get that. Instead they settled for an anti-camcording law.

I hope you know something I don't. With regards to the anti-camcording bill, the head of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association[2] said it "is really the first step - not only for the movie industry - where the government has shown it will seriously address the whole area of intellectual property theft." Reports are that the government intends to go ahead with a DMCA-style "reform". Bev Oda, one of the two ministers responsible for copyright, has previously said Canada will ratify international treaties, implying that includes the WIPO treaty on which the DMCA is based[1]. The 2007-2008 Report on Plans and Priorities lists "copyright reform" as a priority to which the government has "previously committed". Given the

On the up side, now is not the time to give up: the significant opposition to stronger copyright provisions seems be having an effect. While the RPP's statement on the issue points towards anti-circumvention legislation and a flawed conception of copyright as a simple conflict between creators and consumers (when in fact there are creators on both sides, and citizens and the public interest are directly affected), it avoids committing to any paricular course of action:

even though technological advances open the way for innovation and renewed creativity, they do bring with them challenges for the arts and cultural community and for government, especially in terms of balancing the rights of creators and consumers. . . . Actions: reforming copyright; . . .

I wrote to her in January and received a similarly ambiguous reply: "the Government is continuing to consider the concerns of all Canadians . . . The Government wants to ensure that the rights of Canadian creators are adequately protected by law, and that these rights are balanced with the ability of the public to access works."

[1] I should point out that Canada is under no obligation to ratify the WIPO treaty. Even if we do, the treaty's anti-circumvention provisions don't require all of the excesses of the DMCA:

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

[2] For the most part we don't make Canadian films, we distribute American ones. For the distributors, maximalist intellectual monopoly laws are in their interests even if they inhibit the production of Canadian films.

What the industry wanted was a DCMA type act in Canada. They didn't get that and they won't get that. Instead they settled for an anti-camcording law.

I hope you know something I don't. With regards to the anti-camcording bill, the head of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association[2] said it "is really the first step - not only for the movie industry - where the government has shown it will seriously address the whole area of intellectual property theft." Reports are that the government intends to go ahead with a DMCA-style "reform". Bev Oda, one of the two ministers responsible for copyright, has previously said Canada will ratify international treaties, implying that includes the WIPO treaty on which the DMCA is based[1]. The 2007-2008 Report on Plans and Priorities lists "copyright reform" as a priority to which the government has "previously committed". Given the

On the up side, now is not the time to give up: the significant opposition to stronger copyright provisions seems be having an effect. While the RPP's statement on the issue points towards anti-circumvention legislation and a flawed conception of copyright as a simple conflict between creators and consumers (when in fact there are creators on both sides, and citizens and the public interest are directly affected), it avoids committing to any paricular course of action:

even though technological advances open the way for innovation and renewed creativity, they do bring with them challenges for the arts and cultural community and for government, especially in terms of balancing the rights of creators and consumers. . . . Actions: reforming copyright; . . .

I wrote to her in January and received a similarly ambiguous reply: "the Government is continuing to consider the concerns of all Canadians . . . The Government wants to ensure that the rights of Canadian creators are adequately protected by law, and that these rights are balanced with the ability of the public to access works."

[1] I should point out that Canada is under no obligation to ratify the WIPO treaty. Even if we do, the treaty's anti-circumvention provisions don't require all of the excesses of the DMCA:

Contracting Parties shall provide adequate legal protection and effective legal remedies against the circumvention of effective technological measures that are used by authors in connection with the exercise of their rights under this Treaty or the Berne Convention and that restrict acts, in respect of their works, which are not authorized by the authors concerned or permitted by law.

[2] For the most part we don't make Canadian films, we distribute American ones. For the distributors, maximalist intellectual monopoly laws are in their interests even if they inhibit the production of Canadian films.

They're throttling all encrypted traffic, just incase that its used to bypass the traffic throttling they imposed.

So, we need to convert our traffic into bloated HTML code or something. Would use even more bandwidth, but that's what they get.

tell that to Rogers in canada.
They're throttling all encrypted traffic, just incase that its used to bypass the traffic throttling they imposed.
see http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1859/125/ for details

It's a toss-up--we currently have four parties represented in the Canadian Parliament (Conservative, Liberal, Bloc Quebecois, and New Democratic Party), but only the first two have held power throughout the years.

What separates us from the US system though, is that the last two have held considerable sway in the last few years because we've operated under a minority government (i.e. the ruling party must get enough co-operation from the other parties to pass legislation).

In many ways I like having a minority government--the ruling party can't unilaterally push their agendas through, yet the other parties can't arbitrarily invoke a vote of no-confidence to bring the government down (voters may see it as a waste of their time and tax dollars, and punish the offending parties in the next election).

Canada also has a unified elections system, using pen and paper. No hanging chads, fraudulent voting machines with no paper trail, or other over-engineered shennanigans that differ from one electoral district to another, and the votes are all counted and results official (barring recounts) before the night is out. Election campaigns are also typically a mere 5-6 weeks long--we don't suffer from a year's worth or more of political campaigning and asinine TV ads.

There are also strict limits on donations/lobbying money by corporations and unions. Theoretically this reduces chances of corruption, but special interests groups like our equivalent of the RIAA are getting around these restriction in other ways.

Sorry again, found another good link describing the collateral damage screwing up secure email from this policy:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1859/125/

I repudiate the DMCA, and all who would enforce it. It is a corrupt law, born of a corrupt process, in the service of corrupt people. As such, I will not respect or observe it, and you shouldn't, either.

I'm just surprised Canada and the UK aren't on the list, given all the piracy that goes on there. It's almost like this list has nothing to do with piracy.

The above baseless, proof-less and indeed, wrong assertion by an AC gets modded +4 'Insightful'? God this place is going to the trolls.

I call BS, and here's substantiation: The man writing the article (a Canadian university law professor), is in position to know since, unlike the AC, he actually does research rather than just post some knee-jerk opinion U.S. Copyright Report More Rhetoric Than Reality

Could that have anything to do with the fact that we just caved to US lobbyist pressure to buy some goodwill?

In your repetitious use of "the USA," it sounds like you are suggesting that all American individuals follow such behaviors. I believe this particular attack would be better directed at multinational media corporations

In recent months, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins has publicly called on Canada to introduce copyright reform, characterizing our laws as the weakest in the G7 (conveniently overlooking the fact that the G7 no longer exists and references to the G8, which includes Russia, would not be accurate), while U.S. Senators Dianne Feinstein and John Cornyn have written a public letter to Prime Minister Stephen Harper demanding anti-camcording legislation.

...that US policymakers don't listen to some guy who serves as an advisor to the Canadian government.

Oh, never mind. We don't even listen to our own scientists who repeatedly tell us about global warming.

It's not up to government to decide what we can and can't see

Wrong on two counts.

In Canada, hate speech is illegal. "... advocating genocide or inciting hatred against any 'identifiable group' is an indictable offense under the Canadian Criminal Code with maximum terms of two to fourteen years. An 'identifiable group' is defined as 'any section of the public distinguished by colour, race, religion, ethnic origin or sexual orientation." source. This law was upheld by the supreme court in R v. Keegstra.

In Canada, broadcast stations are mandated by law to have a certain percentage of Canadian content, or CanCon. In the past, when the only providers were American, this law was used to forbid Canadians from receiving direct-to-home satellite transmissions, and has also been used to argue in favour of regulating Internet content to ensure CanCon was respected.

While trying to retrieve the URL: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1884/125/

The following error was encountered:

• Read Error

Moreover, movie camcording in Canada affects roughly three percent of Hollywood films (not 50 percent of camcorded films as initially alleged)

As of August 2006, the MPAA documented 179 camcorded movies as the source for infringing DVDs since 2004. During that time, its members released approximately 1,400 movies, suggesting that approximately one in every 10 movies is camcorded and sold as infringing DVDs.

Can't Blame Canada For Counterfeiting

" These reports invariably present a distorted picture - digital music sales grew faster in Canada last year than in either the United States or Europe and music downloading on peer-to-peer sites for personal purposes is arguably compensated through a private copying levy that generates tens of millions of dollars each year. Moreover, movie camcording in Canada affects roughly three percent of Hollywood films (not 50 percent of camcorded films as initially alleged) and Canadian copyright law is consistent with international treaty obligations. " Blame Canada!

OverlyCriticalGuy

You noted your post explicitly OT, so I don't think you're trying to usurp the main thread.

Ray Beckerman - who's postings and efforts I enjoy and admire tremendously - appears to be a little pissed at your post for going OT, but I'm going to take up your question anyway, mainly because I've spent some time talking to musicians, and one musician in particular, about your question.

Off-Topic

My conversational straw poll indicates that the CRIA (the Canadian equivalent of the RIAA) has been successful in getting musicians to believe they need to be partners with CRIA in a fight against music piracy. I think it's an easy place to take musicians to - it's a hot button topic, and nobody wants to feel they're getting ripped of in life.

But a musician's goal in life shouldn't be to minimise piracy, but rather, from a business perspective anyway, to maximise sales of their music. I don't think that the existence of some amount of piracy is causally linked to less sales; rather, piracy *may* be a component of a new distribution model which can help the artist sell *more* material.

So *if* some of an artist's material is pirated, but overall more people are listening to their music and more people are buying their music, do they really give a shit about the piracy that *may* be occurring?

Framed in those terms, musicians I talk to (and I know this is representative of no more than just those musicians) become a lot less uptight. And for those that still feel they're getting ripped off somehow, the Copying Levy in Canada would seem to take even that away (if the dollars collected under the Copying Levy actually got distributed to artists, 'cause I've never met anyone who's seen a penny of it, which is just another instance of the industry ripping them off, but that's another conversation).

So quit worrying about piracy that may or may not be happening, and embrace that new distribution model and sell more stuff.

I'm not an artist making my living off CD and digital copy sales, so I suppose its easy for me to say, but indie artists I know make their sales at live gigs, and I don't think that that is going to change, or that piracy has shinola to do with that. The opportunity to sell digital copies on-line to a much broader audience is an additive element - gravy on existing sales.

This has nothing to do with the sleazy civil suit stuff exposed in the deposition from Ray Beckerman's blog, which is a pretty incredible read. Interestingly, in Canada, the Copying Levy is the basis for the presence of digital music in a shared folder *not* being a problem, as I understand it. Michael Geist's blog is loaded with informative material on this matter from a Canadian perspective. For example, here's a summary of *CRIA* survey material that suggests that those who download the most music via P2P also purchase the most CD's:

http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_conten t/task,view/id,1168/Itemid,85/nsub,/

All of which suggests that the sort of RIAA thuggery shown in the article's linked deposition shoots the industry in its own feet, and then shoves said feet into their big mouths.

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/

That doesn't do any good when they won't even let you access the FAQ!

Also see http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_co ntent&task=view&id=1719&Itemid=125

The move also raises two questions. First - why is Puretracks still blocking Mac users? I tried this morning to access the site and was completely blocked using Firefox and partially blocked with Safari. Presumably offering clean MP3 should allow the service to sell to anyone. Second, the move to clean MP3s brings to mind my colleague Jeremy deBeer's posting last November in which he noted that the online music tariff before the Copyright Board appears to include a mandatory DRM provision. Such a provision is obviously incompatible with the Puretracks DRM-free service.

Michael Geist is Canada's version of Lawrence Lessig.

You should check this article. It provides a lot of info on who's considered bad copyright-wise.

Dr. Geist has a blog entry on the IIPA report here.

Heres a good bit: "The U.S. approach is quite clearly one of "do what I say, not what I do" (fair use is good for the U.S., but no one else), advising country after country that it does not meet international TPM standards (perhaps it is the U.S. that is not meeting emerging international standards), and criticizing national attempts to improve education or culture through exceptions or funding programs. Moreover, it is very clear that the U.S. lobby groups are never satisfied as even those countries that have ratified the WIPO treaties or entered into detailed free trade agreements with the U.S. that include IP provisions still find themselves criticized for not doing enough.

Canadians should not be deceived into thinking that our laws are failing to meet an international standard, no matter what U.S. lobby groups or the Globe and Mail say. Rather, Canadians should know that our approach - and the criticism that it inevitably brings from the U.S. - places us in very good company."

Take a look at Michael Geist's blog... he's the Lawrence Lessig of Canada.

This message proudly paid by a Montreal Pirate! (whatever that means ;)

Well then, make sure your MP knows that you do not support the actions of the current heritage minister Bev Oda. As the person who sets policy for copyright in Canada she has been cught accepting large sums of money ('campaign funding') from American entertainment companies. At the same time, she has refused to meet with almost any groups who represent actual Canadaian artists. Michael Geist has some great reporting on the issue. Check out http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1564/ and http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1529/ to start, but there is much more there.

Well then, make sure your MP knows that you do not support the actions of the current heritage minister Bev Oda. As the person who sets policy for copyright in Canada she has been cught accepting large sums of money ('campaign funding') from American entertainment companies. At the same time, she has refused to meet with almost any groups who represent actual Canadaian artists. Michael Geist has some great reporting on the issue. Check out http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1564/ and http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1529/ to start, but there is much more there.

Seriously, everyone just needs to sit back and read http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ to get some balance to the story

I know TFA is about PCC (not CRIA), but I suspect they are just a different hand of the same beast which is distinctly non-Canadian (though not just American).

So far it seems the pen is at least holding back the tides if not outright winning.
Now that Michael has a spot in the Toronto Star I suspect that more people are becoming educated on the subject. He's also getting interviews on various TV shows...

Geist has blogged about this story, arguing that the levy doesn't stand much of a chance of being upheld.
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1671/125/

The Private Copying Levy is what lets me download with impunity in Canada. The dollars may or may not actually get to the artists (google away on this one), but it certainly does facilitate my p2p activities.

I don't know who the 'Private Copyright Collective' is, but this position is at odds with what we've been hearing about the Canadian Recording Industry Association's position - last heard as wanting to do away with the levy:

http://michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_conten t/task,view/id,1200/Itemid,85/nsub,/

I think this is an interesting tactic: collect levy at the front end, squeeze the availability of material via p2p networks through increased DRM on released materials.

Quite honestly, I don't really notice the levy at my pocketbook, and it does make for an entirely different legal landscape for p2p downloading. Michael Geist is the Guy in the Know about this landscape in Canada - check out his blog at the address above, there's reams of material there.

Traffic shaping is done on local networks by businesses, but it is currently not done by ISPs

Except that user's don't have choices in ISPs. There are usually only 2: the local telecom and the local cable company.

Interestingly, the two articles linked to in the story differ as to the level of piracy coming from Canada. The story from The Globe has a direct quote from Snyder saying that 20% comes from Canada. The article from CanWest Global says 50% but I can't find a direct quote anywhere in either article that substantiates that figure.

If pressed, I'd say that the 20% number is better supported. It almost looks like the 50% number was pulled out of someone's ear.

Additionally, as Michael Geist reports on his blog, the current changes to the Copyright Act that the industry is trying to buy from the government would have absolutely no effect on this. So, once again, it's apparent that the proposed changes have nothing to do with piracy but have everything to do with robbing average citizens of our fair use rights.

What a load of crap, most movies are not pirated by a guy in the theater, but are inside jobs.

Michael Geist gives a good write up on the one-sided BS of this statement.

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/component/option,com_ta gs/task,view/tag,+movie+piracy/

More info about what Michael Geist said/did/found out can be found out here: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1528/159/

If this is anywhere close to being true, it is probably related to the fact that Canadians lead the world in digital download sales growth but that we don't currently have any legal way to download TV shows or movies (for example, the iTunes Music Store Canada offers neither).

More likely is that this is a planted PR press release that the Canadian media have uncritically fallen for. This "starting revelation" comes out at precisely the same time Canada's Heritage Minister is set to release sweeping new changes to the Copyright Right Act that perversely restrict user and fair use rights. Canada's current minority government is neo-con and pro-corporate, denied global warming until about three weeks ago, and only rose to power because the previous government had been in power for 14 years.

In other words, no one should be listening to the government or the Canadian Recording Industry Association. Last year, the major Canadian indie labels left CRIA. In fact, according to documents recently obtained under the Access to Information Act, last year eleven professional organizations representing most Canadian copyright holders in the music industry, including songwriters, composers, performers, record producers, and publishers, wrote to Ministers Oda and Bernier to reject CRIA's new opposition to the private copying system.

heh your right about that, but Bev Oda (the lday in charge of that review) has been linked with some shady dealing with the Canadian version of the RIAA. See http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1528/159/ for more information. The article in that link pretty much tells how the The Canadian Association of Broadcasters, helped her with "Fund rasing" for her polictical campain. People that let themselfs get bought make me sick. They are spineless.

Dear PM Harper

Below is an excerpt from Michael Geist's web site http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1631/125/

What the excerpt clearly documents is: that contributions to the Conservative Party buys weekly/monthly access to the Conservative Government's Minister ODA. The end result of the latter meetings is that the Conservative Government's Minster ODA is allowing the RICH to buy Federal Government Legislation! Just in case you would like to know - I disapprove of THIS BOUGHT legislation; because, it removes and/or disallows my RIGHTS of FAIR USE.

Is this the Conservative Government's interpretation of ACCOUNTABLE GOVERNANCE? That is, PAY FOR PRIVILEGE?

P.S. I have written and/or emailed your offices several dozen times in the last year; but, have never receive ONE response to my queries. Do you just respond to Canadians who give donations to the Conservative Party?

This represents an incredible amount of access, particularly considering the unwillingness of the Minister or her staff to even meet with groups representing Canadian artists. With literally monthly private meetings this spring between the Minister of Canadian Heritage and the President of the Canadian Recording Industry Association is it any wonder that Canadians are skeptical about whether their interests will be addressed in the next copyright bill?

They were correct for modding you flamebait for an anti-Conservative tirade. This is not a partisan issue. Bev Oda's predecessor in Paul Martin's Liberal government Sam Bulte was just as guilty of accepting money from the music lobby. The content industry will throw money at whoever they think can deliver copyright "reform", regardless of what party represent.

It's true, there was a bill on the order paper that was written by, probably, the Big Media Companies, which died when the election was called, I believe. Best to check Michael Geist's site http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ for more information about this topic. It's a great resource!

Don't forget, the current Heritage Minister, Bev Oda, is as much in the pocket of Big Media Companies as Sam Bulte...from Michael Geist:

"Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda did not take the pledge. According to data just released by Elections Canada, if she had, she would not hold her current position. During the campaign, Oda received contributions from many in the copyright lobby including Universal Music (tied for her third largest external contributor), the Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association, the Entertainment Software Alliance, the Canadian Music Publishers Association, and CRIA's own Graham Henderson. In addition, the broadcast lobby were also active supporters with Melinda Rogers (Ted's daughter), Gary Slaight, Phil Lind, Jay Switzer, and the Canadian Association of Broadcasters."

Big Media is trying to buy our members of Parliament...and that is worse than Patronage ever was.

ttyl

To clarify further, criticism is encompassed in fair dealing (under certain vague conditions). However, fair use is a much more expansive set of rights. Fair dealing doesn't give time/space shifting rights nor parody rights, among other things. Also, even in the case of criticism, the guidelines are not clear as to what is permitted and what is not. The interpretation is entirely subjective.

I recall michaelgeist.ca having a blog entry detailing the differences but I cannot find it right now.
Here's another article from the same site that indicates that DVRs are indeed currently illegal, despite widespread sale and use:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1363/125/

Do you really think that every lawyer on those highly-paid legal teams is wrong? They're making a judgment call. They're guessing. There is no legal precedent right now, so they're playing the safer side. Nobody is going to prosecute an ISP for blocking child porn sites. That doesn't make the idea of Cleanfeed right.

Given that her daughter was away from home at the time, the mother was terrified that her child was being kidnapped and sexually abused.So, the mother initiated things, NOT the ISP. I'll ask again, please cite an example where the ISP initiated the investigation. Had the email come from within Canada, your ISP may have found itself at the wrong end of a lawsuit and privacy audit.

Stop bringing up content hosted within Canada, its irrelevant to this topic. Cleanfeed is about URLs hosted OUTSIDE OF CANADA. See the link below at cybertip.ca. "...sophisticated new fi lters[sic] designed to protect their customers from inadvertently visiting foreign web sites that contain images of children being sexually abused and that are beyond the jurisdiction of Canadian legal authorities" Its not even about catching criminals. The point of the project is to stop ACCIDENTAL access. They know its not going to even really impact a determined pedophile.

As far as comparing an ISP to Fedex, what your suggesting is that either A, the ISP had a tip and thus should investigate a customer, or B, Fedex should open every package (ie: sniff and log all traffic). In the case of A, no ISP should release information to law enforcement without a subpoena. The police have ways of getting subpoenas very quickly in cases such as child endangerment. If such a subpoena is presented, I would expect the ISP to respond as quickly as possible, but only within the limits of the subpoena.

Show me somewhere, something, where an ISP has been prosecuted, fined, slapped on the wrist for content carried over its wires. You can't, because there is no reasonable way an ISP can be expected to track, or log everything its customers are doing. Even if there was a way, such a system would be a violation of our privacy. The police can't bang on your door and look for drugs without cause, why should an ISP be able to judge the legality of what's coming to your IP?

Your under a lot of misconceptions about Cleanfeed. There will be absolutely no tracking of IPs that attempt to access blacklisted URLs. Reread my original comment. No ISP will be reporting anything on the URL lists EXCEPT the number of attempted accesses. No logs will be kept of what IPs tried to access what. While your rereading my original comment, you might want to check where I said it "MIGHT" apply. This issue hasn't come to court yet, so we don't know which way its going to go.

I work for one of the ISPs on the list, and have been involved to some extent with the roll out of Cleanfeed. The ISP I work for does not log anything, never has, never will. It does not filter email (aside from virus and spam). Part of the agreement is that the ISPs will not track IPs that attempt access to the URLs on the list.

I'm not suggesting that you should not try and stop a kid from being raped. Knowledge of a potential crime requires you to report it, and report it you should. The issue is if you (or the ISP) were hunting for that knowledge. That's the issue here. I have a right to privacy. Any business that has information on me, they cannot release, even to law enforcement without a subpoena. Check out the privacy commissioners website (see link below). The ISP I work for repeatedly puts ALL employees on privacy training, with regular refresher web based courses. Maybe yours should do the same.

Here are some links I suggest you read:
http://www.cybertip.ca/en/cybertip/cleanfeed_canad a
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1560/159/

Not QUITE, and only allowed for similar personal, limited and specific uses. And not for long, They want a Canadian version of the DMCA: see http://www.michaelgeist.ca/daysofdrm

For abstract examples of middle ground uses which are wrongly denied by DRM and are made illegal by the ill-conceived DMCA please read the 30-days of DRM rss feed.

Now, I know that the USofA (and Australia? and where else?)

It is not always being charged,, but it is supposed to be. You can find more links about this case here.