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. "
Does NAFTA allow us to say no?
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.
If I buy a CD, I have every right to make a backup copy of that. Its called fair use. If I have to circumvent security to exercise my rights as a citizen and consumer, then I am circumventing a system which is trying to PREVENT me from exercising my rights. So what takes precendence? Fair use or DRM, which will take a higher precedence in a Canadian Court of law?
Feed the need: Digitaladdiction.net
Despite the cheery headline, there are still some lamentable changes being proposed. Chiefly, protection for TPMs (Technological Protections Measures, or DRM) in the same vein as the DMCA are being sought, because, you know, they worked so well in chilling innovation and fostering anti-competitive practices in the USA. Reverse-engineering and circumvention of protection measures will be illegal, unless not for the purpose of facilitating infringement, but that's the kind of purpose that can only be determined after a lengthy trial...
And the "notice and takedown" provison is being avoided, but a "notice and notice" provision is being sought, which is slightly less problematic (it does not require immediate removal of the allegedly infringing material) but there are still provisions being sought that require an ISP to facilitate the process of finding and suing potential infringers.
The gov't clearly wants to restrict the definition of "publicly available" material on the internet, and expand the licensing agreement between educational institutions and content providers (read: more money flows from students to copyright holders). If you are a private individual and not a student, there is to date no mention of how you might legally copy information available on the internet.
And finally, there is no indication yet on the direction the gov't wants to go with our oft-cherised "private copying" right, which currently may or may not apply to downloading music onto your computer. (No, it is not clearly legal in Canada, despite what newspapers and other slashdot posters say. It's just very hard to identify and sue infringers.)
So, there is all that to consider.
Actually, Hatch is both. He owns and collects royalties on a catalog of songs he's written. He just happens to be in a unique position to (theoretically) help himself out by enforcing copyright.
-Dan
A"notice and notice" regime in relation to the hosting and file sharing activities of an ISP's subscribers would be provided for. That is, when an ISP receives notice from a rights holder that one of its subscribers is allegedly hosting or sharing infringing material, the ISP would be required to forward the notice to the subscriber. Blocking access to such material would be required only when ordered by a court. 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. The Government would have the power to prescribe the form that must be used in giving notices and to set fees that may be required to be paid by rights holders to ISPs for processing such notices.
I think this is about as fair a system as you can get. ISPs are protected as carriers of information. Rightsholders are able to proceed with civil actions, but the removal of information requires the finding of a court. And everyone is protected (to some extent) from overzealous rightsholders by the possibility of a "processing fee" to compensate ISPs for their trouble.
In Soviet America the banks rob you!
If it can be argued that the person you got the DVD movie you've downloaded from was in Canada, there's nobody to sue in the chain of DMCA violations, only in the copying of copyrighted content violations. The Canadian user could DeCSS the content for you.
What I'm curious about now is whether this will lead to an identifier (maybe another DVD region?), for Canada, in the next format, but such that ripped content could be identified.
There are a lot of joke replies in this thread, but can we clarify something first? The news is not that positive! It's not AS BAD as the DMCA but there are still a lot of restrictions that Slashdotters would disagree with. E.g. Circumventing DRM to make private copies of sound recordings would become illegal. So for example, I can't use Hymn to strip the DRM off my iTMS songs and store them on a backup CD incase iTMS/Apple ever ceases to provide service.
Random is the New Order.
Come to my country. You can stay forever if you give enough money to the correct political party. Bribery really sucks, no matter what you call it.