Slashdot Mirror
Canada Says No To DMCA
P Starrson writes "
The Canadian government has reportedly said no to the DMCA. It
released its plans
for copyright reform today with a limited anti-circumvention provision
that would not cover the likes of DeCSS. It even avoided the U.S.
"notice and takedown system" that has caused a big headache for U.S.
ISPs. A good summary is available from Canadian law professor Michael Geist. "
Government of Canada Unveils Plans for Copyright Reform
Industry Canada and Canadian Heritage, the two departments responsible for copyright policy in Canada, this morning released a joint statement on plans for copyright reform. There is an additional FAQ that fleshes out the issues. A bill is expected this spring and the statement spells out where Canada is headed. The key points include:
1. The government will implement the WIPO Internet treaties. Note that the government now speaks of implementing, rather than formally ratifying, the treaties. They indicate that they will consider ratification after this bill is passed.
2. The package will include an anti-circumvention provision applied to copyright material. There is no mention of extending the provision to devices (as is the case in the U.S.) and the specific reference to applying the provision to copyright material suggests that the provision will limit its applicability to circumvention to commit copyright infringement. The rights management information is similarly limited to instances to "further or conceal copyright infringement." While no anti-circumvention provision would be better, this suggests that the Canadian provision will feature some real balance.
Moreover, the FAQ makes clear that "the circumvention of a TPM applied to copyright material will only be illegal if it is carried out with the objective of infringing copyright. Legitimate access, as authorized by the Copyright Act, will not be altered." This is very different from anti-circumvention provisions found in the U.S. However, the FAQ also notes that circumvention for the purposes of private copying will not be permitted, meaning people may find themselves paying for a CD and paying a levy on blank CD yet unable to make the copy of the underlying CD.
3. The recording industry gets some of their package - a making available right and a full reproduction right for performers.
4. A "notice and notice" system for ISPs rather than notice and takedown. Canadian ISPs will only be required to notify their subscriber of an infringement claim, not take the content down as is found in the U.S. The ISP will be required to retain subscriber information, however to ensure that it is available should litigation later arise.
This is a major development as it implements a much fairer system than that found in the U.S. (or even the more draconian notice and termination system that CRIA raised last spring). The FAQ argues that this system is better suited to a P2P world, since notice and takedown simply doesn't work for P2P.
5. The photographers' copyright issue will also be addressed. It is not entirely clear how the reform will address the commissioning of photographs issue - an exception for private or domestic commissions is contemplated, but this one that really requires the legislative language. No word either on what will happen with the stalled Senate bill on this issue.
6. As previously reported, the extended license for Internet materials has been shelved for now with a consultation on the issue planned for this year.
7. The Act will include new provisions to facilitate electronic delivery of materials within schools and libraries. This is viewed as addressing the user side of the equation. It's a start but obviously user rights don't command the same attention as the rights holder groups.
8. Other major issues for immediate consultation include private copying and broadcasters rights.
The devil will be in the details but this represents a major shift away from the embarrassingly one-sided Canadian Heritage Standing Committee recommendations issued last May. While that report clearly pushed the agenda forward, the government's response has certainly recognized the need for some balance. Lots more on these issues to come...
Here is the website... :)
http://www.cic.gc.ca/
No sig for now.
Plus they were there because of a stolen vehicle, not because of the grow op.
As for the by-products control, the thing was, seven years ago Canada banned using animal by-products as animal feed. The cows that the States got were seven years old, and had been raised for the first few months of their life on the LAST few months of animal by-product feed process. These were the LAST possible cows who could have gotten Mad Cow from the feed, and they did, and we gave them to you guys. One in a million shot, doctor... one in a million.
I like to place meaningful quotes in my sig, so people will know that I know what meaningful quotes are.
Can record companies (Canadian equiv. of [MPRI]{2}AA) sue p2p users sharing music and movies?
Currently no. Once this act is passed, yes they can. The ISP is obligated to maintain sufficent records to identify the subscriber for a period of time.
Relevent documentation from Proposed changes:
Upon receipt of a notice, ISPs would also be required to keep a record of relevant information for a specified time. Rights holders would have the legal means to compel ISPs to comply with the regime.
AND
(FAQ)
This will clarify that the unauthorized posting or the peer-to-peer file-sharing of material on the Internet will constitute an infringement of copyright.
Can users copy records/movies for private use?
Currently yes. After this act is passed, yes BUT users are not allowed to legally bypass any restrictions (DRM) in order to do so. That becomes illegal.
Relevent documentation from Proposed changes:
The Act's private copying regime provides for an exception to copyright that permits the making of a copy of a sound recording for private use
BUT... not everything is good: (from FAQ)
The bill will also contain legal protections for technological protection measures (encryptions, password requirements) and rights management systems containing information for the purpose of tracking uses of works. The removal of or tampering with such measures for the purpose of infringing copyright will itself constitute an infringement of copyright.
What this looks like is basically opening the door to lawsuits for record companies, making file sharing illegal and closing the door on consumers being able to turn off DRM to make a copy of a CD or movie for themselves.
How is this not DMCA?
Je n'ai comprend pas.
If I buy a CD, I have every right to make a backup copy of that. Its called fair use.
0 000107----000-.html
In the USA,"Fair Use" is not a right.
It is defense against prosecution.
It is also very nebulously defined, on purpose to make it applicable to future situations without requiring amendment, but that also means the application is not clear cut, generally relying on case law to determine specifics.
Here is the section of US copyright law that defines fair use:
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/usc_sec_17_0
...what else can we boast about?
Progressive, tolerant society?
High standard of living?
Excellent international reputation - a beacon of peace?
Beautiful Canadian women?
Amazing landscape?
Good job opportunites?