Slashdot Mirror

What to make a difference? Stop preaching to the converted at Slashdot and write to the Canadian
politicians, who might actually make a difference. Their web pages provide email addresses.

The membership of the committee making these recommendations is here. The INDU report lists
the "witnesses" in Appendix A: all big media and software businesses.

Send each of these politicians an email message. That's how the system works. Use it or
shut up about the consequences, because it'll be YOUR fault then. If can't write them all, at least write to the chaiman and a few others.

What to make a difference? Stop preaching to the converted at Slashdot and write to the Canadian
politicians, who might actually make a difference. Their web pages provide email addresses.

The membership of the committee making these recommendations is here. The INDU report lists
the "witnesses" in Appendix A: all big media and software businesses.

Send each of these politicians an email message. That's how the system works. Use it or
shut up about the consequences, because it'll be YOUR fault then. If can't write them all, at least write to the chaiman and a few others.

Just wrote my MP here. We'll see if I get a response. If not, then I think I'll take your advise and go on down.

The list of MP's:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/hou se/mpscur.asp?Language=E

http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeList.aspx?Lan g=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&SELID=e18_&COM=10476

And here's a letter I sent to my MP (who's on the committee)

Dear sir,

I worry that in light of the INDU's demand of a Canadian DMCA, you fail to discriminate between COUNTERFITTING (which nobody supports) and Intellectual Property "piracy". I fear that industry lobbyists be given carte blanche to draft anti-piracy laws based on outdated and self-serving interests.

I'd like to draw your attention to the following:

- the Copyright Act is properly recognised as being a careful balance between the rights of creators and the rights of the public including viewers' readers and listeners

- the Supreme Court of Canada unanimously affirmed this view in CCH Canadian Ltd v Law Society of Upper Canada;

- digital technologies have recently given copyright holders the ability to upset the balance in the Copyright Act by preventing Canadians from accessing works for purposes that have been legally granted to them;

- the creation of original works is nourished by wide accessibility of earlier works' including a vibrant public domain;

- dissemination of cultural ideas requires that they be preserved in a form that is accessible to future generations; and

- historically consultations regarding changes to the Copyright Act have mostly taken place with creators' intermediaries and only some special users such as educators and librarians

THEREFORE, I call upon you as my elected Member of Parliament to ensure generally that users are recognised as interested parties and are meaningfully consulted about proposed changes to the Copyright Act and to ensure in particular that any changes at least preserve all existing users rights' including the right to use copyrighted materials under Fair Dealing and the right to make private copies of audio recordings. I would further call upon Parliament not to extend the term of copyright; and to recognise the right of citizens to personally control their own communication devices.

Sincerely,

voting constituent,

Vernon, BC

A list of Federal MPs: http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/membersofparliament/Main MPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

Click one and get their email.

This is not a party-specific issue. I wish it was that simple, but it isn't. The previous liberal government had tabled revised copyright legislation. It died when the government did (thank goodness). The committee in question has wide representation from all parties.

According to the links at this house of commons web page, the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology consists of:

CHAIR
James Rajotte (Conservative MP for Edmonton-Leduc, Alberta)
VICE-CHAIRS
Paule Brunelle (Bloc Québéois MP for Trois-Rievières, Quebec)

Dan McTeague (Liberal MP for Pickering-Scarborough East)
MEMBERS
André Arthur (Independent MP for Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier, Quebec)
Maurizio Bevilacqua (Liberal MP for Vaughan, Ontario)
Scott Brison (Liberal MP for Kings-Hants, Nova Scotia)
Gerry Byrne (Liberal MP for Humber-St.Barbe-Baie Verte, Newfoundland & Labrador)
Colin Carrie (Conservative MP for Oshawa, Ontario)
Brian Masse (NDP MP for Windsor West, Ontario)
Bev Shipley (Conservative MP for Lambton-Kent-Middlesex, Ontario)
Dave Van Kesteren (Conservative MP for Chatham-Kent-Essex, Ontario)
Robert Vincent (Bloc Québéois MP for Shefford, Quebec)

And then there are a huge number of associate members (looks like most of the House of commons). The above page has all the contact information for the relevant MPs.

Read the committee report and write informed letters NOW to the chair of the committee and to your local MP, especially if your local MP happens to be on the committee. The party they are in is irrelevant. They're all in the pockets of the media interests trying to lobby these changes through. It is time to remind MPs of who elected them, and that they can't neglect the implications for the wider public. It's a minority government. They might actually listen.

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 Parliamentary Committee responsible for the recommendation is the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology (INDU). http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteeList.aspx?Lan g=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&SELID=e18_&COM=10476 It is a multi-party committee comprised of Conservative, Liberal, and Bloc members. The Chair is a Conservative, and the two Vice-Chairs are Liberal and Bloc respectively.

So all parties are culpable, not just the Conservatives.

Here's the actual bill: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publicati on.aspx?DocId=2993072&Language=e&Mode=1&File=24 I got all fired up after reading that toronto star story and all these comments, and was looking up my MP's email address when I decided to look up the bill. After reading the bill, the fact that it got a standing ovation seems really... fucked up. It kind of took the wind out of my sails to see it, though it seems like it should be redundant to something in the criminal code. Unfortunately I'm really busy and don't have time to look that up right now... maybe someone else will. If it is redundant than I'll be more than happy to write my MP. last week of school though, time is so short...

The bill, at Bill C-59 says that it's only a crime if the theatre manager says so.

This allows the manager to set his own camera up in the projection room, which is conveient, but not as convenient as running the film through a scanner or the DVD through a duplicator.

Perhaps the drafters think that theatre managers can't be bribed?

--dave

Link to bill. However, since it hasn't been put on the order paper and it's a minority parliament, this bill will likely die on the order paper (meaning Parliament will be dissolved before the bill passes).

Link to bill. However, since it hasn't been put on the order paper and it's a minority parliament, this bill will likely die on the order paper (meaning Parliament will be dissolved before the bill passes).

...I'd recommond every Canadian to go to here:

http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/Main MPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

Find their member of parliament and tell them that they will not tolerate motions like this under any circumstance.

Send an email to Joy Smith (the MP who introduced this half baked bill). Here's mine:

I would like to voice my objections to the "Clean Internet Bill" recently introduced by Ms Smith. This bill will be totally unenforceable as any traffic can and will be encrypted on the Internet. And an ISP licence? I thought one of the goals of this government was LESS bureaucracy. This would be yet another arbitrary and unenforceable regulation. Do I become an ISP for sharing a connection with other members of my household? Canada currently has a reputation as a leader in the high tech field, but this reputation will be eroded by such poorly thought out pieces of legislation as this.

"Internet service provider" means a person who provides a service that facilitates access to the Internet, whether or not the service is provided free or for a charge.

4. (1) No person may offer the services of or operate as an Internet service provider unless the person has been granted a licence to operate as an Internet service provider in accordance with subsection (2).

(8.4) No person shall respond to a contact that is made using the Internet for the purpose of facilitating a designated offence involving a child.

"Internet service provider" means a person who provides a service that facilitates access to the Internet, whether or not the service is provided free or for a charge.

4. (1) No person may offer the services of or operate as an Internet service provider unless the person has been granted a licence to operate as an Internet service provider in accordance with subsection (2).

(8.4) No person shall respond to a contact that is made using the Internet for the purpose of facilitating a designated offence involving a child.

The lobbying efforts of these various content industries are going to continue regardless of which party is in power. Take the time to write your MP, and CC each of the major political parties as well:

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1045/
http://www.liberal.ca/contact_e.aspx
http://www.ndp.ca/contact
http://www.green.ca/en/contact

Make it known that Canadians will not support any government pandering to the one-sided arguments of content publishers. DRM is doomed to failure and propping it up with legislation is just another step towards criminalizing fair-use.

Sorry to make this AC. Firstly, thanks for vocally opposing this sort of legislation. Some people otherwise would only hear the arguments of the "crazy bastards".

With respect to C-416, don't panic, it's mainly an attempt to embarass the government to produce a similar bill. This private member's bill is already dead.

The bill is unconstitutional on its face and is unlikely to be read a second time in the House of Commons because it includes clauses that directs the government to draw upon the Public Accounts of Canada, but has not been accompanied by a Royal Recommendation.

Per section 54 of the Constitution Act (1867), all money bills in the Canadian Parliament must be accompanied by a Royal Recommendation. Royal Recommendations are granted only by the Governor General-in-Council on the advice of a Cabinet Minister. In essence this preserves the spending power of the government of the day, since both Houses of Parliament have rules preventing the advancement of bills or amendments which increase the estimates, direct spending from the Public Accounts, and so forth. Although no such bill has ever survived third readings in both houses of Parliament in Canada, the Prime Minister certainly would exercise his or her (indirect) constitutional power to deny royal assent or proclamation to such an Act of Parliament on the grounds that it was not accompanied by a Royal Recommendation. (This is partly because it would be his legal and moral duty to defend the Constitution, but mainly because Prime Ministers like to protect their Spending Power at all times, but especially when they do not control either of the two Houses of Parliament).

As a matter of course, the Speaker of the House of Commons will be asked to determine whether the bill is votable given that it appears to be a money bill, and it is a virtual certainty that he will rule that it is not, and consequently the bill will be removed from the order paper.

If you're very interested, there is a long commentary on the history of the Royal Recommendation in Canada.

Here is relevant wording from the bill with the relevant word highlighted:

(3) The Minister shall pay the telecommunications service provider an amount that the Minister considers reasonable towards the prescribed expenses that the Minister considers are necessary for the service provider to incur initially to comply with an order made under this section.

The House of Commons's current standing rules and orders do not allow for a private member's bill to have a Royal Recommendation "rescue" a money bill from a ruling that it lacks one. For the bill to be constitutional on its face, this particular clause (and the subsequent one dealing with equipment) would have to be removed entirely, or the bill would have to be introduced by a Cabinet Minister armed with a Royal Recommendation (making it a government bill, formally).

There are other Constitutional difficulties in the rest of the bill, but as it will not survive the first test, they are of only academic interest.

Finally, remember that the Liberal Party of Canada comprises Members of Parliament who are to the left of Ché Guevara, and other MPs who are to the right of Darth Vader, although recently several of the latter, especially those with authoritarian streaks rooted in religion, seem to be retiring or leaving the party.

(I hope you point this out in person or in writing to the MP from NDG-Lachine, Marlene Jennings... maybe she will stop acting so pro-police-state as a result.)

They really do want to do what they are describing in the article, and what's more, they want the ISPs to pay for it all.

Have you actually read the bill?

From the first reading of Bill C-416

Section 15.3
(3) The Minister shall pay the telecommunications service provider an amount that the Minister considers reasonable towards the prescribed expenses that the Minister considers are necessary for the service provider to incur initially to comply with an order made under this section.

Section 15.4
(4) The Minister may provide the telecommunications service provider with any equipment or other thing that the Minister considers the service provider needs to comply with an order made under this section.

It wont pass for two reasons. One, the three other (very liberal) parties wont let it happen and two, it's a private members bill.

You can tell it's a private members' bill because of its high number, in a majority parliament situation a double digit numbered bill (c-16 c-42 etc) will pass, PMB's rarely pass.

Here is a list of the current PMB's:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HouseBills/BillsPrivate.asp x?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=1/
As you can see there are hundreds of them to be considered with this one being at the end of the line.

I highly doubt this will ever be voted on in legislative session in this session of parliament.

Actually, I already did tell the politicians to do that.

But in nice language that they would actually read.

Oh, and the person to contact is David Emerson Contact Page

And remember kids, you can mail a letter FREE (no postage required) to the government if you want.

(4) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) prevents
(g) the use by a person of their address, the geographical name of their place of business, an accurate indication of the origin of their wares or services, or an accurate description of their wares or services to the extent that the description is necessary to explain those wares or services to the public

(4) Nothing in subsection (1) or (2) prevents
(g) the use by a person of their address, the geographical name of their place of business, an accurate indication of the origin of their wares or services, or an accurate description of their wares or services to the extent that the description is necessary to explain those wares or services to the public;

Sorry, but your information is incorrect. According to the old rules, the limit was $5,000 for individuals, and $1,000 for unions and corporations.

According to the new rules that took effect January 1st, the limit is

• $1,100 to parties,
• $1,100 to party members,
• $1,100 to party-affiliated entities,
• and $1,100 (total) to party leadership candidates.

That's from individuals, so a family of four could potentially contribute 4 * (4 * $1,100) = $17,600.

That seems "significant" to me.

Find your MP and put the pressure on, please. I've already called mine (Laurie Hawn), to find his position on the debate. The rep at his office had never heard of the Net Neutrality issue. While I hope this isn't common, I wouldn't be surprised. If your MP is a Conservative, put the pressure about how damaging this will be to small businesses, startups, and our fancy new "Knowledge-based economy" idea. It may be easier to convince the Liberal or NDPs about how damaging this could be to the consumer. I urge EVERY Canadian on Slashdot to put in a courtesy call or two to their local Member of Parliament. While you're at it, contact your MLA to see if you can help pressure your provincial government as well. I'll include links:
Alberta
British Columbia
Manitoba
New Brunswick
Newfoundland
Northwest Territories
Nova Scotia
Nunavut Territory
Ontario
Prince Edward Island
Quebec
Saskatchewan
Yukon Territory

Use your postal code at this site, and you can find out how to contact your MP.

Oh, and Liberal or Conservative, it's all the same mess. The Liberals were a bunch of criminals and it's likely the Conservatives will end up that way if they stay as long as the Liberals did as well. Welcome to politics. These days, one party only does something because the other party doesn't want to. Remember why you hated the popular kids who ran for student council? Yeah, they 'grow up' some day too. Half the reason we have half the problems we have today is that the people in charge everywhere are the people who want to be in charge, not necessarily the people who should be in charge.

We have been very fortunate not to have the draconian laws that are totally one sided. We as Canadians pay a levy on all our CDs /etc when we are using said media for legitmate uses. Listing of Canadian MP's by Postal Code Take some time and let your MP know that this issue is important and the current buzz over the environment doesn't mean people are going to ignore this. Remember, doing nothing is doing something. That something is allowing the music industry lobby groups walk all over you and say thank you, can I have some more.

First, go here to find your representative:

http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/Main MPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E

then, email them the following (just a suggestion):

Hi [representative],

This is my first time writing to you, as a new constituent. I am writing concerning an article I read today on CBC.ca. http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/11/copy right-canada.html

I am fairly concerned about possible changes to Canadian fair-use laws. I consider myself a patron of the arts, and one of the music industry's best customers. As a modern, technology-savy citizen, I primarily listen to the music CDs I purchase on my portable iPod, or on my PC. Changes to fair use laws would make the act of "ripping" these songs to my computer, illegal. I consider myself an ethical consumer, and I don't see how in any way this activity harms the music industry. I suppose one could argue that, should this law come into effect, I could purchase my music online and therefore no "illegal" copying from CD would take place. However, these downloadable files (by way of the iTunes music store, for example) already defeat fair-use by restricting your ability to move them to new devices, new PCs etc.

In short, this law will punish good consumers, like me. Unethical consumers of music are already breaking the law by downloading pirated music, so this law will not affect them. If such legal changes are made, in order to continue listening to music in the manner I have been for years, I will probably opt to simply break the law - as I expect will the majority of iPod-owning Canadians. I will also seriously question whether or not such an industry should be supported financially by my hard-earned paycheques.

Thank you for listening,
[insert name here]

If you don't have your MP in your address book, then here's the lookup site:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/hou se/PostalCode.asp?Source=SM

I already sent my MP a letter, do your part if you're pissed.

How about some contact info for those interesting in writing the powers that be about this issue?

Please, pretty please note that the age of consent in Canada differs than the one in the states, making such actions perhaps more complicated then they need be.

Canada's Legal Age of Consent to Sexual Activity (PRB99-3E):
http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/library/PRBpubs/ prb993-e.htm

I'm not a cop so I don't know all the ins and outs of the situation. I do know that law enforcement has a problem with fortified houses and bunkers. They're illegal in lots of places. The first time this came to my attention was when the cops tried to raid such a house. It was part of a complex of row houses and the cops ended up burning down the whole block (by accident) trying to arrest the inhabitants.

The link below is to a debate in the Canadian house of parlament where the issue is discussed.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/infocomdoc/37/1/just/meeting s/evidence/justev16-e.htm

"A 14-year old sleeping with a 14-year old is extremely regrettable."

"Bowling for Columbine" tried to make a point like that, but is it valid?

I'm not convined that there are "more guns than people in Canada." The population of Canada is 32 million. The number of guns is difficult to determine, but is in the range of 7 to 11 million (corroborated here, and numbers of 7-16 million are used in some official canadian government rhetoric). That's alot of guns... but not more guns that people. It's 0.28 guns per person, on average.

The population of the US is about 295 million. The number of guns in the US (also hard to estimate) is, according to one estimatem, around 200 million (corroborated here, although that includes estimates of undeclared guns; a different site indicates at least 60 million declared guns). That's 0.68 guns per person, on average.

Those stats are debatable, of course. Estimating such things is hard. I also fully acknowledge that the websites I pointed to are not especially trustworthy sources (some are about gun-control, hence they will typically use the biggest stat for number of guns to make their point). However, the take-home message is that, indeed, there are lots of guns both in Canada and in the United States, yet the number of gun-related deaths (per person) in the US seems worse than in Canada. This is the point that "Bowling for Columbine" was trying to make... however it is a great exagerration to say that there are "more guns than people" in Canada.

Actually, yes;

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/hou se/PostalCode.asp?Language=E&source=sm

In Canada and England tabled means "present formally for discussion or consideration at a meeting." In the USA tabled means "postpone consideration of." Yes it is confussing.

The enactment stipulates that contributions to registered parties, candidates, registered electoral district associations, leadership contestants and nomination contestants may be made only by individuals and are subject to limits. A limited exception allows contributions of up to $1,000 to be made by corporations and trade unions, or by associations from money given by individuals, to registered associations, nomination contestants and candidates.

So, while it doesn't stricty forbid non-individual contributions, it severely limits them, and thus limits the amount of leverage that an organization can exert on a politician.
A good thing, in my book. Not perfect, but better than nothing.

Bill C-60: Internet service providers have also done very well. They obtain clear provisions that they are not liable for caching or other hosting of third party content. Further, there is the notice and notice system, which obligates ISPs to send a notice if there is a claim of copyright infringement and retain "records that will allow the identity of the person to whom the electronic location belongs to be determined" but they are permitted to charge for the service (the government will set the maximum fee). ISPs that fail to abide by these provisions face only statutory damages of either $5,000 or $10,000.

What is troubling me the most is who is going to watch the ISPs? So much noise is being made about watching and tracking users but no one is watching the ISPs. At least in Canada. I say put QOS and Code of Conduct laws in place first then consider protecting other countries faling business models. I certainly don't trust my personal information in the hands of a small local ISP. Would you?

http://www.talksudbury.com/forums/index.php?showto pic=493&hl=bill+c-60
http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/b ills/government/C-60/C-60_1/C-60_cover-E.html
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/index.php?option=com_co ntent&task=blogsection&id=0&Itemid=100&topics=1003 6

Well called.

Bill C-74

Long term, no, it doesn't look as though Canada is 'safe' when it comes to privacy. Short term, if federal elections become annual as minority gov'ts are successively defeated, perhaps they'll have a hard time passing much of anything. Any Canadians thinking about voting Liberal in January should consider this bill before doing so.

I've read most of it, and it's definately not as scary as US copyright increases, in first reading it states: 31.1 (1) A person who, in providing services related to the operation of the Internet or other digital network, provides any means for the telecommunication of a work or other subject-matter or a reproduction of it through that network does not, solely by reason of providing those means, infringe copyright in that work or other subject-matter. (2) A person referred to in subsection (1) who performs any other acts related to the telecommunication that render it more efficient, including the caching of a reproduction of the work or other subject-matter, does not, by virtue of those acts alone, infringe copyright in the work or other subject-matter. [http://www.parl.gc.ca/38/1/parlbus/chambus/house/ bills/government/C-60/C-60_1/C-60-4E.html%5D

With the elections looming, it is time to call your Member of Parliament and let them know that your current and future voting decisions will be heavily influenced by their stance on the issue.

Too many comments are dealing with the idea that Canada is somehow superior, because this legislation doesn't suck as badly as some copyright legislation sucks in some other countries.

Don't forget that on the whole, our copyright laws still suck, and this bill will make them suck more. The law professors in this article don't like bill C-60; and neither do I! This isn't a non-issue. Copyright is everywhere!

Between literature, music, arts, crafts, and physical performances, there's very little that *doesn't* fall under copyright in Canada. Martial arts are a physical performance, dancing is a physical performance, blacksmithing is a craft, stained glass is an art, and programming is a form of writing. Mathematics is copyright. Photographs are copyright. Music is copyright. As for me, almost every single creative pasttime I enjoy is affected by copyright; and I think this holds true for many others as well.

And remember, copyright doesn't just protect rights, it also limits them! The first person to record an particular form of expression gets all the rights to that form of expression; and everyone else loses out! Natives are losing their rights to tell their old stories, because someone else is writing them down, and copyright doesn't apply until a work is "fixed" in a tangible format. The same could happen to ancient martial arts and dance forms, now that videocameras are common. If it hasn't been recorded yet, it's first come, first served for the rights to perform those ancient rituals. :-(

In Canada, you don't have the right to read books out loud. In fact, there's a specific exemption for teachers under the Fair Dealing section of the Copyright act that lets them read "portions" of a book to their class. There are also special exemptions for religious worship, which is probably unconstitutional these days. There's the notion of "moral rights"; which forbid you from doing anything with an author's work that might reflect badly on the author. In one famous case, the Eaton Centre had bought an unsafe mobile from an artist, and moved bits of it so they wouldn't fall. The artist successfully sued, because they changed his work of art without his consent.

Me, I think copyrights in Canada were too stiffling to begin with, and they're just getting worse.

But don't just take my word for it. Read Bill-C60, read the current Copyright Act, and do your civic duty by informing your MP of your viewpoint (for or against) this piece of historic legislation.

Hurry, and let your MP know your opinion before it's too late to voice one. :-(
--
AC

P.S. Why can't anonymous users reply to posts anymore? :-( Slashdot isn't working for me. :-(

My lazy MP is too busy crusading against homosexuals to reply to my letter :-@

So I'll have to email him for a 3rd time, and if he doesn't reply it will just be good fodder to defeat him in the coming 2006 election.

DMCA for Canada is not acceptable
Written Friday March 25 2005

Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.
Send your letter for free (no postage necessary when parliament is in session; But in Summer send it to their constituency office I'd reason), to your MP at the following address:
[your MP's name] M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Find their email address, but write by paper mail too.
[fix URL gap] http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/hou se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
To summarize the issues in this letter:
1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.

2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.

3. Internet Search engines such as Google.ca, and Libraries must not be subject to penalties for providing direction to copyrighted materials.

Background:
http://pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/reform/ statement_e.cfm

Here is the reasoning:
The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.

The current version of Bill C-60 suggests it could be illegal for anyone to provide copyrighted information through "information-location tools," which includes search engines like Google.ca. This anti-business, and anti-information clause, is very un-Canadian.

It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.

Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other sup

can be found here

Some notes for y'all:

- The bill is C-60: http://www.parl.gc.ca/37/1/parlbus/chambus/house/b ills/government/C-60/C-60_1/90191bE.html
- The blank media levy info is here: http://www.sycorp.com/levy/
- How each political party stood on this in the '04 election: http://www.cippic.ca/en/projects-cases/election-20 04/

... now that Canada and Europe have fallen ...

If you are referring to the latest bill ammendments to Canada's Copyright act, you will find that they only render activities that are done for the _purpose_ of infringing as actually being criminal, and purpose can only be inferred when copyright infringement actually occurs (that is, one makes copies without permission that are not otherwise exempt from infringement). Read it carefully... it's nowhere even _close_ to being as draconian as the DMCA has turned out to be.

Now that the bill has been posted, The question is a little clearer.

From the bill:


40.2 (1) A person described in paragraph
40.1(1)(a) or (b) [ie, an ISP] who receives a notice of
claimed infringement that complies with subsection
40.1(2) has an obligation, on being paid
any fee that the person has lawfully charged for
the performance of that obligation,


So, the upshot, if I interpret this correctly, is that if you provide Internet access or proxy services or hosting free of charge, you're not obligated to forward an infringement claim notice or keep identification records. ...That's a little better. So projects like or Dijjer are not required to keep tabs on everyone that uses the network.

Whew!

With the introduction of DMCA legislation in Canada yesterday

Not to go too far off topic, but keep in mind that this bill has been introduced and is not yet law; as such anyone, particularly Canadian citizens, who cares about this should stop by their MP's office, write them (preferrably on paper), or phone them and voice their opinion on this legislation.

Alphabetical list of MPs
Lookup by postal code

There's detailed contact information on each MP's page.

With the introduction of DMCA legislation in Canada yesterday

Not to go too far off topic, but keep in mind that this bill has been introduced and is not yet law; as such anyone, particularly Canadian citizens, who cares about this should stop by their MP's office, write them (preferrably on paper), or phone them and voice their opinion on this legislation.

Alphabetical list of MPs
Lookup by postal code

There's detailed contact information on each MP's page.

DMCA for Canada is not acceptable
Written Friday March 25 2005

Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.
Send your letter for free (no postage necessary when parliament is in session; summer is approaching), to your MP at the following address:
[your MP's name] M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

Find their email address, but write by paper mail too. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/hou se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E

Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
To summarize the issues in this letter:
1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.

2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.

Background:
http://pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/reform/ statement_e.cfm

Here is the reasoning:
The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.
It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.

Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other supporters of personal liberty and innovation in the arts. I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,
my name