Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Canada May Ratify WIPO Copyright Treaty

Posted by michael on from the some-imports-should-be-stopped-at-the-border dept.

rocjoe71 writes "It appears the Government of Canada might be ratifying the WIPO copyright treaty, which will surely bring an end to our P2P downloading heydays. Among the measures that could be enforced by ratifying WIPO would force ISPs to comply with a 'notice and takedown' system against subscribers who violate copyright laws... As we speak RIAA lawyers are amassing on the Canada-U.S. border, ready for an all-out invasion."

46 comments

  1. Not likely to happen soon. by Pig+Hogger · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Canada currently has a minority government, and they have far bigger problems to deal with than copyright law extensions.

    1. Re:Not likely to happen soon. by nusratt · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I read your sig/link.
      It would be nice if you'd at least acknowledge cognizance of the fact that there are almost 50% of us -- about 150 MILLION -- who are AT LEAST as unhappy about it as you are.
      Remember: we also suffer all the consequences experienced by the rest of you, AND we LIVE here.

      Did you feel the same animus against the millions of ordinary nameless faceless Soviet citizens, when their government invaded Afghanistan?

  2. i await by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2

    John titor's prophesy. Bring down ALL establishment and rebuild everything from scratch.

    --
  3. Right, enabling legislation... by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 3, Informative

    would have to pass the House, head to committee pass third reading and then to the Senate. If it even makes it to committee I would be surprised.

    Also, notice no mention was made of outlawing technologies that could disable digital rights systems, something a previous Commons committee report on copyright strongly advised against.

    1. Re:Right, enabling legislation... by Russell+McOrmond · · Score: 1

      Anyone wanting to learn what is happening in Canada in this area of law should go to the Digital Copyright Canada forum. There are a number of misconceptions in the comments to this SlashDot article, including not recognizing just how close we are to getting US-DMCA-style legislation in Canada.

      Please sign our *PAPER* petition, and coordinate with us to contact your MP and other policy makers.

      --

      Digital Copyright Canada forum

  4. I saw this comming... by Steamhead · · Score: 4, Insightful

    As a Canadian I can see that our two cultures are too intertwined for this not to happen, we usually pride ourselves on not being American, but we are always only a few years behind.

    I suppose its truly time to move to Europe...

    1. Re:I saw this comming... by LuSiDe · · Score: 1

      As a Canadian I can see that our two cultures are too intertwined for this not to happen, we usually pride ourselves on not being American, but we are always only a few years behind.

      Always? Come on.

      (First, this is subjective. I assume we agree the liberal / self-choice is progressive and that the religion of one may not be the basis of opression upon another.)

      Its not always true regarding civil rights-related freedoms. Canada is on legalizing marijuana (already done?), Canada legalized gay marriage. I'm not sure on euthanasia. (My source for marijuana and gay marriage was Marryanamerican.ca.) Point is: don't even try to legalize any of these in the USA right now! The USA is behind on these aspects. However, (some countries in) Europe and Canada are a tie on these aspects.

      I suppose its truly time to move to Europe...

      I'm from NL and sure we have euthanasia, abortion, gay marriage, marijuana all legal some of these for decenia but i'm not sure if theres any changes on this subject. Better research that first!

      To put it more broad: if you're seriously considering to move to Europe / EU i suggest you research the political climate first, research whats gonna happen in the EU as a whole and do overal research. Europe may have negative sideffects you don't wish for.

      --
      WE DON'T NEED NO BLOG CONTROL.
    2. Re:I saw this comming... by psifishdot · · Score: 1
      Canada is on legalizing marijuana (already done?)

      Not legal. A bill to decriminalize (not legalize) marijuana has been re-introduced to the house. May pass, may not.

      Canada legalized gay marriage.

      Only legal in some provinces. However, unless our minority government collapses, it will likely be legal very soon.

      euthanasia

      Not even close. However, there was recently an interesting case concerning assisted suicide in BC.

      --

      Long live Schrodinger's cat...
  5. ISPs, Policing Copyright and Existing Taxes by zrafnid · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Here we go again. If the Gov't wants to make ISPs responsible for the actions of their users, I certainly hope they're planning on providing some payment for the time it will take.

    Effectively, the action suggested in the article would make an ISP a branch of law enforcement - requiring them to comply with orders to disable user accounts and, probably, pay penalties for non-compliance with such orders.

    I now question, quite strongly, the reason there are taxes on blank CDs, DVDs, Video Tapes, and other storage media. I had believed that this tax was to go directly to SOCAN (the Canadian RIAA equivalent) to ensure that artists were compensated for copies of their materials. If they now believe that any person downloading a song that they already own is a target for prosecution, I don't think I'll be too keen on paying those taxes. Time to talk to the MP in these parts, I guess.

    1. Re:ISPs, Policing Copyright and Existing Taxes by Creepy+Crawler · · Score: 2

      We the US have accepted taxation without representation for quite a long time... Guess you finally get that one too, eh?

      --
    2. Re:ISPs, Policing Copyright and Existing Taxes by FrankDrebin · · Score: 1

      According to the committee recommendations here , section B, the private copying provision will remain (as will the levy, likely). Here's the text of interest:

      The Committee concludes, after considering the submissions and testimony of the witnesses, that the private copying regime does not prevent Canada's ratification of the WPPT. Analysis of the private copyright regime as a whole will continue as part of the copyright reform process.

      So at least that part of "not breaking the law by copying songs" is not under immediate threat. It seems the provision raising most hackles with Slashdotters is the notice and takedown provision recommendation of section D. The DMCA in the US has clearly been abused by RIAA and others, causing us Canadians to be wary.

      The Committee recommends that the Copyright Act be amended to provide that Internet service providers (ISPs) can be subject to liability for copyrighted material on their facilities. The Committee notes, however, that ISPs should be exempt from liability if they act as true "intermediaries," without actual or constructive knowledge of the transmitted content, and where they meet certain prescribed conditions. ISPs should be required to comply with a "notice and takedown" scheme that is compliant with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, with additional prescribed procedures to address other infringements.

      It's clear that something in the arena was bound to happen to Canadian copyright law. IMHO we can encourage the legislators to do a better job than our American friends, by making the takedown procedures honour due process (courts must be involved to effect a takedown, none of these self-proclaimed infringement charges with extortion invoice), and get serious about the penalties for false notifications. If you're writing to your MP or the committee, you might get more traction if you speak about these facets directly than getting into a rant about WIPO and levies.

      It seems possible, given the text above, that P2P network nodes (or end user computers, generally) would not be covered by the notice and takedown provision for ISPs, only material actually hosted by them. We might encourage the legislators to get specific about this interpretation as well.

      --
      Anybody want a peanut?
  6. CONTACT THEM NOW by Medgur · · Score: 5, Informative

    When this came up last spring I contacted ministers responsible with a short message detailing my distaste for WIPO and attempted to explain in layman's terms just why it's a very bad idea. Their response came down to "this is what the CRIA wants" padded in beuracratic bull shit. I thought this might have disappeared with Hélène Scherrer being voted out, but I see now this was wishful thinking.

    Still, we can make a difference if we contact them and explain in simple yet clear terms why it's bad. By Canadian law they must respond to your email, so at the very least you know someone is reviewing it, and if enough people write in we can probably enact some change.

    So, here's the important info:

    The email address for the Heritage Committee: HERI@parl.gc.ca

    The email address for Heritage Minister Liza Frulla (head of the committee): Frulla.L@parl.gc.ca

    The web site for the Heritage Committee (Gee, seems like all they care about is copyright. Nice doublespeak): http://www.parl.gc.ca/committee/CommitteeHome.aspx ?CommitteeId=8974&Lang=1&ParlSession=381&SelectedE lementId=e17_

    And for future reference, in case you're wondering where I get all this
    information from:
    The list of members of the House of Commons, with contact information:
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb /house/members /CurrentMemberList.asp?Language=E&Parl=37&Ses=1&Se ct=Hoccur&Order=OrganizationName

    It will only take 5 minutes, go write them!
    Even if you're not Canadian, the message will still be read, so go write them!

    1. Re:CONTACT THEM NOW by Clith · · Score: 1
      Why oh why can't people make links out of their URLs??

      The email address for the Heritage Committee
      The email address for Heritage Minister Liza Frulla (head of the committee)
      The web site for the Heritage Committee (Gee, seems like all they care about is copyright. Nice doublespeak)
      The list of members of the House of Commons, with contact information

      --
      [ReidNews]
  7. Grace Period? by revjonnylove · · Score: 1

    Speaking as a someone who puts his spare time into a canadian based, non-profit P2P company, I wonder how long a grace period there would be before action is taken, if this new law is passed.

    Surely nobody expects canadians to have to comply the minute the treaty ink is dry.

  8. Re:CONTACT THEM NOW - working links by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative


    For the lazy:

    The email address for the Heritage Committee.

    The email address for Heritage Minister Liza Frulla (head of the committee).

    The web site for the Heritage Committee.

    The lists of members of the House of Commons.

    Posting AC so feel free to increase visibility.

  9. How's them apples! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

    Take that Canada, with your Universal Health Care, liberal government, and Civil Rights! You're becoming just as fucked up as us (USA).

    You know, that didn't make me feel better. The "you suck too" argument worked so much better when I was 6, now it's just depressing. Oh well, back to looking for a job.

  10. What to write by alexo · · Score: 2, Insightful


    Canada is an immigration country.

    A lot of residents are not comfortable writing to their representatives due to either limited proficiency in English (and/or French) or not knowing what phrasing is "socially acceptable" in Canada.

    Some example letters could be very helpful for these people.

    1. Re:What to write by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      Copyright is a system for regulating technology -- it regulates technologies used to make and distribute copies. We have lots of technology regulation in the world: there are rules that govern the operation of automobiles and rules that govern the marketing of electrical appliances. This isn't per se wrong.

      But when the 20 horsepower locomotive was invented, the blacksmiths weren't able to successfully lobby to have 80 horseshoes welded to each engine, despite the rule that said that every "horse" used for transport needed four shoes. When you invent a railroad, you need railroad-rules for it, not horse-and-buggy rules. The facts that the railroad doesn't need shoes, or oats, or curry-combs don't reflect bugs in railroading: they are the feautres of railroading.

      The Internet has one overarching feature that makes it superior to the technologies that preceded it: it can copy arbitrary blobs of data from one place to another at virtually no cost, in virutally no time, with virtually no control. This is not a bug. This is what the Internet is supposed to do.

      It was really foresighted in 1996 for WIPO to sit down to update copyright law to suit the Internet. They recognised that the Internet was a fundamentally different thing from the technologies that came before it, and of course, a new technology needs new rules and regulation.

      But WIPO got it horribly wrong. The approach that WIPO took to regulating the net was to create a set of rules that tried to make the Internet act more like radio, or TV, or photocopiers -- like all the things that it had already made rules for. The WIPO approach treated the ease of copying on the net as a bug, and set out to fix it.

      Notice-and-takedown is an area where WIPO got it drastically, terribly wrong.

      If you own a restaurant, you're not responsible for policing your customers to ensure that none of them are carrying stolen bank-loot. If someone burst in and pointed at the guy at the back table and said, "He's wearing my hat!" no one would blame you if you didn't wrestle the hat away from him and give it back to the accuser.

      But under notice-and-takedown, this is what we ask of our ISPs. If you allow users to host stuff, you're responsible for what they host. If they put an infringing file on your server, you're required to know what they've put online, and you'll share in their punishment if you fail to block them from posting infringing material.

      Now what is and isn't a copyright infringement isn't anything like a clearcut issue. ISPs aren't equipped to evaluate what's infringing and what isn't -- hell, even Supreme Court judges have a hard time figuring it out. Operating a server doesn't qualify you to understand and evaluate copyright law.

      So there's a get-out-of-jail in notice-and-takedown. If you respond to accusations of infringement by taking your customers' materials offline quickly, you won't share in their liability. Now, given the kinds of penalties available to rights-holders for online infringment (in the US, it's $150,000 per infringement!), it's not surprising that most ISPs avail themself of this "safe harbour," removing stuff whenever a complaint comes in.

      But a complaint isn't proof -- someone who rings up your ISP and says, "That file infringes on my rights" is like the guy who busts into a restaurant and shouts, "That guy is wearing my hat!" There's no way for an ISP to evaluate whether he's genuinely aggreived, whether he's nursing a grudge, whether he's just a nut. In the US, nuts, grudge-nursers and flakes all use notice-and-takedown to censor the Internet and get material removed.

      Usually rights-holders will counter that this can be addressed through something called "counter-notification," where an ISP that's removed something is given the right to contact its customer and say, "This guy says you infringed his copyright. If you disagree, let us know and we'll put your file back online and you two can sort it out in court."

      But in practice, counter-notification is a rare

    2. Re:What to write by Feztaa · · Score: 1
      Here's my letter, feel free to copy it yourself but try to paraphrase in your own writing, they won't like getting a million copys of the same form letter:

      Hello,

      As you are probably aware, copyright is an agreement between a content creator (author, musician, artist, etc) and society, to grant them a temporary monopoly on their work, to allow them to profit from their efforts. There is no inherent right of a person to control his works indefinitely. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an original thought: all thoughts are the results of building upon previous ideas. In light of this, in order for society to progress, every person must have the right to expose themselves to any creative work they choose, and be free to create derivitive works themselves. This is called "creativity", and should be nurtured.

      The WIPO's plan to extend copyright terms is contrary to this goal. The term "Intellectual Property" itself is a sick attempt at treating ideas like real estate. WIPO's proponents are interested only in controlling people, controlling what they read, what they hear, and what they think, for the purposes of extracting maximum profits from stale ideas. Extending copyrights can serve only one purpose: to funnel more money directly into the pockets of record executives, publishers (not authors), and the like. For society to truly progress, the old works that these companies hold hostage need to be released into the public domain, so new artists can build on those ideas, creating NEW copyrighted work to profit from.

      The fact is, each time copyright terms are extended, creativity grinds to a halt as artists are restricted from using those works. We must fight to *shorten* copyright terms, so that old works that have become a part of our culture can be built upon, creating new works for the future of our culture. If we keep extending copyright terms as we are, we wage a war on creative thought. The result of this can only be stagnation, and death. You're probably thinking "but how can we reward artists for their hard work?" and the answer is that copyright already does that just fine, it doesn't need to be extended or strengthened. Anybody in favour of strengthening copyright is simply looking to keep profits flowing without having to bother creating anything new or interesting.

      Unfortunately, in our society, copyright has been extended to the point of bastardizing it's original purpose. It no longer rewards creative artists; it merely supports aging cartels resisting changes to their business model that will be necessary for them to survive in the Information Age.

      Thank you for your time, I am but a concerned citizen.
    3. Re:What to write by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dear Mssrs Membre La Parliment,

      You suck. Eh esse?

      From,
      Senior Pepe.

  11. had me worried for a sec by shaitand · · Score: 2, Funny

    I thought this might be taking place in a real country. Hell Canada could be renamed "USA Part Deux" without detracting from it a bit.

    It seems to me that the rest of North America should just give in and accept that it's all really the US anyway.

    1. Re:had me worried for a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Funny

      As a Canadian, I just wanted to tell you EAT SHIT AND DIE YOU AMERICAN HOSER!

    2. Re:had me worried for a sec by dgatwood · · Score: 1
      Actually, I was thinking the opposite... that both coasts of the U.S. plus most of the northern border should just accept that we should be part of Canada anyway and let the rest of the country try to make it on its own.... :-)

      --

      Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.

    3. Re:had me worried for a sec by RsG · · Score: 1

      And what would we call whats left of the 'States? The United States of the Midsouthwest? Jesusland? Dubyakzastan?

      (laugh, it's a joke... actually come to think of it it's a touch to serious to be funny).

      --
      Erotic is when you use a feather. Exotic is when you use the whole chicken.
    4. Re:had me worried for a sec by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Sorry buddy but the Mexicans are out breeding you by about 10 to 1. Either start putting your dick where your mouth is, or learn to speak mexicaner.

    5. Re:had me worried for a sec by shaitand · · Score: 1

      Look Buddy, haven't you seen southpark? You damned Canadians, with your square heads and unattached jaws that open and close leaving a hole in your head while you talk, are just going to have to accept your place in things.

      With that said, I'll be moving in next door later this week (anything to get away from religious rule).

  12. What scares me the most by Guspaz · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Is this bit:

    "The committee also recommended allowing for extended licensing of Internet material for educational purposes, meaning that a fee cannot be collected for publicly available material.

    That publicly available material would be defined as material that available on public Internet sites that do not require subscriptions or passwords and for which there is no associated fee."

    Is it just me, or does that seem extremely abusable?

    1. Re:What scares me the most by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      What's so abusable about that? If you run a non-subscription, free site, teachers can print your material and distribute it to their students or use it in classes. It's exactly the same thing you'd be offering if each student had a computer on their desk to browse your site with.

  13. Do you know what C-42 is? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Ratification of the WIPO Copyright treaty isn't going to change anything.

    Canadian ISPs already receive takedown notices from the MPAA, MediaSentry, and BSA. I know, since I see them for the ISP that I work for. I also received forwarded copies from major upstream providers.

    Canadian Copyright Act already prohibits copying for purposes of distribution. So until the Act, distributors (ISPs) can already be sued. Go read the Act at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/

    MediaSentry and the MPAA are hip to this alrady, and quote the Act when sending warnings to Canadian ISPs. If the WIPO Treaty is also ratified, it would just allow them to beaf up the language.

  14. This exception already exists in current copyright by Hamster+Lover · · Score: 2, Informative

    The educational exemption for use of copyrighted materials already exists. For example, if an instructor wished to discuss an article that appeared in a newspaper or magazine, the instructor could make as many copies as needed for the class without violating the copyright. The recommended changes would simply extend this exemption to cover material pubically available on the Internet, if I read this correctly.

    It is a necessary and appropriate addition, in my opinion.

  15. mod parent troll -- click the sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Point is weakened by flamebait sig

    1. Re:mod parent troll -- click the sig by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Think that's bad? Check out his home page.

  16. Government Payments by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    While im not FOR this by any means, you do realise that any 'payments' the government makes comes from taxes... Your taxes..

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
  17. Re:CONTACT THEM NOW - working links by psifishdot · · Score: 1

    You can also mail Liza Frulla at:

    Liza Frulla, MP
    House of Commons
    Ottawa, Ontario
    K1A 0A6

    It's even free (in Canada) if you make sure you put the "MP" someplace on the envelope. E-mails are great but snail-mail gives that nice official touch that says I took the time to fire up Word or OpenOffice and print off a letter that I then mailed on my way to work.

    While you're at it, e-mail Paul Martin and tell him you support/oppose missile deffence, gay marriage or whatever issue is burning you:

    Right Hon. Paul Martin, MP
    House of Commons
    Ottawa, Ontario
    K1A 0A6

    --

    Long live Schrodinger's cat...
  18. how to write by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    some notes on writing letters to MPs and a sample letter (for an entirely unrelated cause) are at:

    http://www.fotf.ca/familyfacts/takeaction/activi sm 101/writeletter.html

  19. My letter by lhaeh · · Score: 2, Insightful

    I'm sure you've revieved many emails about this so I'll keep it short.

    I am against the WIPO. It will raise the cost of doing business for IT
    companys.

    It will curtial free speach; If I were to send an anonymous takedown
    letter to an isp claiming that a site is violating my copyright, they
    would take it down without a question. The ISP would have no other
    econimically viable choice. This tatic has been abused in countrys
    with simular laws.

    This law only placets the CIRA. We have given them enough concessions
    already, in the form of recordable media leavys. These leavys hurt
    independant artists, like myself, who want to distrubute their works
    on CD. The CDs cost less then the leavy they are stuck with.

    1. Re:My letter by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

      crap, and "levy" and "distribute", "countries"...fuck...nevermind

  20. Don't squeeze the treaty! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    "It appears the Government of Canada might be ratifying the WIPO copyright treaty"

    Man, I didn't know they had copyrighted the little guy? I guess I really shouldn't have squeezed the Charmin.

  21. second edition by Feztaa · · Score: 1
    revised for clarity:

    Hello,

    Copyright is an agreement between a content creator (author, musician, artist, etc) and society, to grant them a temporary monopoly on their work, allowing them to profit from their efforts. There is no inherent right of a person to control his works indefinitely. Furthermore, there is no such thing as an original thought, as all thoughts are the results of building upon previous ideas. Once they have earned their profit, other people must have the right to build upon these works. This is progress, and should be nurtured.

    The WIPO's plan to extend copyright terms is contrary to this goal. The term "Intellectual Property" itself is a sick attempt at treating ideas like real estate. WIPO's proponents are interested only in controlling people, controlling what they read, what they hear, and what they think, for the purposes of extracting maximum profits from stale ideas. Extending copyrights can serve only one purpose: to funnel more money directly into the pockets of record executives, publishers (not authors), and the like. For society to truly progress, the old works that these companies hold hostage need to be released into the public domain, so new artists can build on those ideas, creating NEW copyrighted work to profit from.

    The fact is, each time copyright terms are extended, creativity grinds to a halt as artists are restricted from using those works. We must fight to *shorten* copyright terms, so that old works that have become a part of our culture can be built upon, creating new works for the future of our culture. If we keep extending copyright terms as we are, we wage a war on creative thought. The result of this can only be stagnation, and death. You're probably thinking "but how can we reward artists for their hard work?" and the answer is that copyright already does that just fine, it doesn't need to be extended or strengthened. Anybody in favour of strengthening copyright is simply looking to keep profits flowing without having to bother creating anything new or interesting.

    Unfortunately, in our society, copyright has been extended to the point of bastardizing it's original purpose. It no longer rewards creative artists; it merely supports aging cartels resisting changes to their business model that will be necessary for them to survive in the Information Age.

    I am a concerned citizen, thank you for your time.

    References:

    Lessig on WIPO
    WIWO
  22. Canada May Ratify WIPO Copyright Treaty by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Then Canada wants to go down the cultural drain.
    To undestand, read the essay WHY COPYRIGHT LAWS ARE WRONG. This is the clearest explanation of the copyright mess in the USA and elsewhere. It explains whow the copyright laws are designed to reduce the arts that reach the people by filtering the works through the real money makers, the "copyright industry", while very few artists make any real money.

    I will send the essay by e-mail to anyone who requests it at rafa_venegas@hotmail.com .

    Rafael Venegas
    http://www.gvenegas.com

  23. Re:This exception already exists in current copyri by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Does this mean that schools don't have to pay for software, aren't bound by the GPL, and that textbooks are freely redistributable?

  24. Sign the Petition by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I created a petition calling on the Government to ignore the recommendation to ratify the WIPO treaty. You can sign it here: http://www.petitionspot.com/petitions/canadawipo

  25. Re:Sign the *PAPER* Petition by Russell+McOrmond · · Score: 1

    Digital Copyright Canada has a Petition for Users' Rights as well as BLOGS, mailing lists, and other materials related to this area of law in Canada.

    Signing a web petition will not change the views of parliamentarians, but the paper petition we are organizing will be noticed. Please print it out, sign it, and mail it in to us. You may want to bring this to parliamentarians and offer to discuss it with them.

    Different method of contact influence politicians differently. Email is the lest, because it is the easiest. Moving upward is a FAX, a SNAIL mail letter, a phone call, and then a fact-to-face meeting. The DCC site has per-riding discussion areas you can use to organize groups in your riding to meet with an MP.

    --

    Digital Copyright Canada forum

  26. I am not a grammar nazi on slashdot... by d34thm0nk3y · · Score: 1

    ...but if you are planning on sending this it is "placate" and "speech".

    1. Re:I am not a grammar nazi on slashdot... by lhaeh · · Score: 1

      It was wrote in a, "quantity over quality", way. It was ment to be skimed over by some clerk. The post on /. was an afterthought.

      I definateily should have had a disclaimer, "Use this for ideas, not as a form.", attached to it.

  27. Mine by dsanfte · · Score: 1

    Dear Honorable Members,

    It has come to my attention, as a Canadian Citizen, that the Canadian Heritage Committee, including the Hon. Mrs. Frulla, has recommended WIPO Copyright treaty ratification. I strongly oppose this without adequate measures to protect existing rights of consumers and the public domain, and I will detail why.

    As you are well aware, the WIPO treaty contains language similar to the anti-circumvention clauses similar to those in the United States' DMCA. The language forbidding the circumvention of "copyright-protection" measures is astonishingly absolute, in that it contains no exception for the legitimate right of consumers to create backup copies of their purchased goods, such as CDs and DVDs. Many CD, and all DVD products contain this "copyright-protection" technology, and the number is increasing.

    There are two reasons for my views:

    1) It provides Copyright holders with a method of keeping their works perpetually out of the public domain, which is highly disturbing. Even after copyright protection on a work expires, it will remain illegal to circumvent copy-protections on that work, effectively allowing permanent copyright protection for any digital movie or recording. Once the media of the recording degrades so as to make it unusable, the work will be lost forever.

    2) These plastic media are vulnerable to scratches and damage, and it is in the public interest to provide a legal means of creating archival or "back-up" copies allowing consumers to protect their investment. It is not possible to copy many of these media, even for legal reasons, without breaking this "copy-protection" technology, and this must be reflected in the legislation put forth to Parliament.

    I strongly urge the Minister, and this Committee, to consider this letter, and respectfully request language in the Bill to allow for circumvention of "copyright-protection" measures where the purposes are already legal and justified.

    Sincerely,

    David Sanftenberg

    --
    occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb