Slashdot Mirror
Proposed Canadian Laws to Nix P2P Music Sharing
limber writes "During this past weekend's Juno awards (a vapid Canadian music industry shindig) Canadian Heritage Minister Liza Frulla brought up proposed new legislation that would make downloading music on the Internet without paying for it illegal. High (or low) lights of the legislation include: forcing 'ISPs to monitor individual customer Internet connections for suspicious activity,' and giving the music industry and songwriters 'the tools to sue' illegal downloaders. Frulla further noted she 'wanted to persuade children that downloading music for free is wrong.'
I guess I'll have to steal from the store! (Its not as bad if i get caught)
Ok, so if its going to become illegal to download music and let the record industy sue people, is the tax on media going to be repeled?
When will these groups stop giving awards for bad music to artists that sell out so their fans can't even access their music if the artist wants to let them
I have mod points and I am not afraid to use them
What happens if you are copying music you have bought to yourself (say from home to work), or music that is "opensource" (i.e. smaller bands than encourage mp3 distributions). Does this law allow loopholes for these circumstances? If Canadian politicans are anything like American ones, there will be a script that autosues file traders even if the file is only named after a song (and doesn't actually contain the music, i.e. song lyrics).
"Those that start by burning books, will end by burning men."
Not to mention that there's already a fricken levy on CDs and other media to compensate artists for downloading.
A Multiplayer Strategy Game for Mac OS X, Windows, and Linux
* Connect 2 iPods with a Firewire chord -- iShare
* IMDB links -- "download now!"
* On-demand TV, for real, any TV show ever made
* Level playing field for musical artists -- disincentivize massive investment in ad campaigns, encourage band competition through P2P blogsphere
* Encourage competition in the following fields:
- Attribution.com -- tries to authoritatively attribute chain of creative credit for original/derived work...
- Who can sell "IP" at the lowest price? Can the USA compete with China? 1cent books, anyone?
- What are TRUE value adds when "IP" is (almost) free? e.g., purchased CD comes with concert tickets; $500 purchase buys you a free Bar Mitzva concert...
etc... More to come...
Just going off what summary.... Think they realize that this would make the iTunes free download of the week illegal? Politicians just prove what we think of them more and more each day....
- AMW
because we get shitty laws first, but then other countries come up with shittier copies.
It's great! This leglislation will die, because we're probably going to have an election soon.
Sounds like someone didn't get nominated!
"Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
The DMCA was shot down in Canada so this is just another pathetic attempt to fight fair use. I have no doubt that this bill will fail just like the rest.
Canada has a lot more liberals than the US, and many less politicians who are swayed by corporate interests. Very little chance Canada will ever have a "real" anti-freedom law like the DMCA or like this one.
Its a wonder why I still live in the US.
Just like Americans were persuaded by Al Qaeda to give up their superficial cupidity for fear of having planes crashed into them. When a punishment does not fit a crime, it is terrorism, not justice.
Are we (America) gonna go to war with the Canadian terrorists now?
When you're afraid to download music illegally in your own home, then the terrorists have won!
News to me. I've lived in Canada 30 years and never once was I allowed to cast a vote for my head of state or even my Prime Minister. Not quite sure what you're talking about really but you're probably super confused after reading what I wrote so I better let you go now.
Support the First Amendment. Read at -1
Wow. That's a friggin' broad term. Why can I see this being (ab)used a whole range of intrusive stuff.
All of sudden the role of the ISP is to monitor the content you download?
So a commercial entity has the right to have your ISP to monitor you for 'suspicious activity' (subject to their determination) when the RCMP would need a warrant to do this exact thing?
And if the RCMP was going to have the power to have your ISP randomly examine your data for 'suspicious activity' there would be people going ape-shit in protest.
So why are letting the music companies do this when we wouldn't let our government do this to us?
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Man, I took like seven. But at least now I don't feel so bad.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Downloading music "for free" from the internet should be illegal?
Hypothetical situation. I am a young independant unsigned artist. I make music, and would like to increase my listening audience. I put MP3's of songs I composed and performed on a website and I seed the songs onto a P2P network. What is the duration of my jail term?
Also a few people are commenting that the "copying levy" on blank media should be repealed - under this juristiction, it shouldn't. That levy is to pay for "fair use" copying of copyrighted works. This has no bearing on internet downloads.
I am government man, come from the government. The government has sent me. -- G.I.R.
Its' about access to our cultural heritage, from both our present and our past, being denied to us in the name of increasing someone else's profits.
I repeat, culture should be freely available to every member of our society.
How?
IDK but perhaps, music should be accessable to anyone at anytime for a reasonable price, and then be free a short time later (15-30 years perhaps?). This is not what we have had in the past.
Its' all water under the bridge though, by the time these laws are effective, we'll all just trade amongst friends with hard drives, as if it isn't happening already, the internet is just too slow (though its' still good for variety).
Anyone know if there is any kind of campaign already in action to let the government know how ridiculous this is? If not then I'm gonna have to start tracking down some addresses and writing some letters. I really don't want to see this kind of crap happening here in Canada.
...And I'll say it again.
These laws are almost entirely unenforceable. As an ISP, if any government wanted to force me to monitor individual users' bandwidth, I'd ask them if they were going to provide me with extra staff to help me do it, since there would be no possible way that I could do such a thing myself. Let's also see if they can persuade their usually understaffed, underpaid police forces to do the job, as well...My guess is that that is unlikely.
Any government that wants to can pass as many laws like this as it wants, and then sit back and watch as the general public completely ignores them. Governments, the RIAA, and WIPO need to get it into their empty heads once and for all:- We *want* to pirate music, we're *going* to pirate music, and apart from a few token lawsuits here and there against the odd big fish, for the most part there is exactly jack shit you can do about it. Get used to it, because it (and we) are not going away.
..they're wearing me down.
Each time a story like this comes up, I find the address of the minister responsible (and it seems like it's a different one every time. How much is the music industry paying these people?) and write my letter, CCing it to the leader of the opposition, the Prime Minister, and my MP.
It's getting to the point where I'm just getting tired of doing it.
That Jesus Christ guy is getting some terrible lag... it took him 3 days to respawn! -NJ CoolBreeze
Anyone visiting a Flash website is guilty. Because you are downloading music from a website without paying for it. How about online games like miniclip.com or yahoo Games?
/. manual <BR> addition ...
On another note: what about the archives with classical music in MIDI format? It's music and can be downloaded for free. And it's free of copyrights.
And what about online games (the type of WoW or GTR), these may download new music from their home server without the user knowing about it !
This is an impossible law to be valid, there's too many ways people can break it unknowingly.
--
Grr,
In Canada, as in any parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is chosen indirectly, by the party that forms the government. The head of state is of course the Queen, whose role is now entirely ceremonial. The facts that you have nothing to say about a purely ceremonial figure and that the Prime Minister is not directly elected does not make Canada any less a democracy.
For the common man.
Step one. Start a Garage band.
Step two. Record everything you play, quality is not an issue.
Step three. Name every one of your songs after another pop song you hate and add "sucks" to the end of it.
Step four. Download and upload your songs with reckless abandond across all the P2P networks that are easiest to pinpoint clients with.
Step five. Wait to be sued.
Step six. Reply to said suit. With "I own this music. Suck the corn out of my stink nuggets, you prissy faggot! Leave me alone." On letter head with your bands name and logo, which can also suck. Maybe draw a little picture of a dick, or "the bird" in/near your signature.
Step seven. Countersue for harassment and press criminal charges for barratry.
Step eight. Retain the services of a high profile class action attorney and Lawrence Lessig.
If 90% of the population wants to kill every Amerind (Native American, whatever you're calling them now), does that make the government wrong for trying to stop you?
For that matter, if 90% of the population wants the USA to nuke Toronto (yeah, I was never very impressed with Toronto - just another big, ugly, city), would that mean that the government should just forward the request to Washington?
Remeber, democracy isn't quite the same thing as "Mob Rule", much as many people would like to make it so.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"I repeat, culture should be freely available to every member of our society."
It's easy being generous with something you had no hand in creating.
"IDK but perhaps, music should be accessable to anyone at anytime for a reasonable price, and then be free a short time later (15-30 years perhaps?). This is not what we have had in the past."
Why such arbitrary numbers? Don't you want "free culture" before someone even thinks of it?
"Its' all water under the bridge though, by the time these laws are effective, we'll all just trade amongst friends with hard drives, as if it isn't happening already, the internet is just too slow (though its' still good for variety)."
Humanity! Always going for the easy solution, for the toughtest problems.
Uhh, yeah it does. It makes it a republic.
It's easy being generous with something you had no hand in creating.
Intellectual propery rights protect discoveries, not creations. It's an important distinction: most of the time, no one can tell me what to do with my own paintings, because the paint, labour and cavass belong to me.
However, IP law tells me that you can restrict what I can create: specificially, that I can't create a painting that is "too similar" (as determined by the courts) compared to the painting you discovered. Note that you only get IP protection on your first copy: you don't get 10 times the copyright if you copy the same painting ten times. It's the discovery that counts.
IP law works by limiting our freedom of expression. I dislike that: freedom of expression is important: it's an integral part of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I object to it being dispensed with so lightly. I also object on the same grounds that I would object to the sale (or long term lease) of Crown land to private interests.
I don't feel that we should give free oil monopolies to anyone who finds oil on public lands. I believe this even though surveying for oil is a complex, expensive operation. Similalry, I don't feel that the reward for discovery of a new painting or a new song should be the grant of a copyright monopoly, even though discovering a new song or painting may prove complicated or expensive.
It's generally against free market principles to provide a government monopoly. It's also against general principles of free expression to do so for copyright.
One can perhaps argue the case on utilitarian grounds (it will help industry, it will provide incentive for artists, etc.), but certainly not moral ones, unless you somehow presume that the author's Right of Discovery trump all other rights to the work discovered.
That's not a belief I choose to hold.
--
AC
Uhh, yeah it does. It makes it a republic.
Uhh, no it's not. We're a parliamentarian constitutional monarchy. That means we are a democratic nation -- democracy is the process. If you want to split hairs, then there are no democracies (outside of Swiss cantons, perhaps). When was the last time you had a direct vote on any bill tabled in Ottawa?
In Canada, as in any parliamentary system, the Prime Minister is chosen indirectly, by the party that forms the government.
No, the PM is appointed by the Queen, or by her representative, the Governor General. She chooses, by tradition alone, to accept the suggestion of who to appoint.
Again, by tradition alone, she (or her direct representative, since the Constitution was passed) usually chooses enact the laws that parliment recommends. She (or her agent) is not required to do so.
The head of state is of course the Queen, whose role is now entirely ceremonial.
Be very careful where and how you claim that the Queen holds no authority over Canada. That notion is quite probably seditious (arguing directly against the powers of the Sovreign). Sedition is an offense punishable by up to 14 years in prison, according to section 59 of the Criminal Code (See Section 59 of the Criminal Code at http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-46/text.html for details).
The facts that you have nothing to say about a purely ceremonial figure and that the Prime Minister is not directly elected does not make Canada any less a democracy.
No, Canada is very much not a democracy; it is a constitutional monarchy. To claim otherwise is to deny the legitmacy of the rule of Her Sovreign Madgesty, Queen Elizabeth II. Like I've said, that's still illegal here. The very fact that it is illegal, indicates quite clearly that we do not live in a democracy.
The Queen has, however, chosen to allow us to behave, for the most part, as if we were living in a democracy. That's probably why you're so confused.
--
AC
It's rather unfair to compare genocide with music piracy in that manner... Also, I hate to tell you this, but democracy is 4 (or however many years you work on in whichever democracy you happen to be lucky enough to be in) year mob rule - if that 90% were still adamant about nuking Toronto, the "Lets Nuke Toronto Party" would win the next election hands down (on a simple platform of "We'll drop the bomb then call elections"). Also, Congrats for siding with the gov't over the population - as an English Citizen, can I have 300 years back taxes (as the government should have stopped the Sorry to flame so much but the comparison of music piracy to mass slaughter slightly irritated me... I'm not necissarily saying the mass of the population is always right (e.g. prohibition, Fascist Europe, e.t.c.) but your argument was way too severe. A much better argument would be that the figure of 90% was too high - drop it below 50% and majority law applies...
Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
A democracy need not be direct. Here's the first definition google produced. It is typical:
I'm well aware of the fact that Canada is a constitutional monarchy. There is no conflict between being a constitutional monarchy and being a democracy. Canada and most other constitutional monarchies are true democracies insofar as the monarch does not, and cannot without provoking a constitutional crisis, exert actual control. The Queen's actual powers are extremely limited. Beyond appointing the governor-general and the lieutenant-governors, she exercises power only in the very rare situations in which she refuses royal assent to legislation or where, no party having a clear majority, she decides who to ask to form the government. The queen does not, in practice, have the power to originate legislation or to act outside the framework of the law.
Wrong. It is not sedition to make a correct statement, or even an incorrect statement, about the powers of the sovereign. Sedition requires the intent to change the government by force. This is not merely a general definition; it is the definition given in the Criminal Code of Canada.
If you're really concerned, write to the opposition party leaders and/or their shadow cabinet representatives as well. I am uncertain how to get this information directly, so I send it to the opposition party leaders.
http://canada.gc.ca/directories/direct_e.html
Your voice DOES MATTER IN CANADA. People will pay attention. Write something.
..don't panic
Democracy is EXACTLY mob rule. It's just that the mob is usually very reasonable, and generally disapproves of mass slaughter or the needless nuking of eyesore cities.
The fact that you can't vote for the head of state is meaningless, since the head of state has absolutely no power in Canada and isn't a real part of the government.
Wasn't comparing music piracy to genocide. Just commmenting on silliness of notion that "90% of us want something, so government should give it to us". That's the argument of a spoiled child....
Also, Congrats for siding with the gov't over the population - as an English Citizen, can I have 300 years back taxes
Sure, send your Army over to collect anytime at all. Though my ancestors paid taxes to your ancestors for 70 of those three hundred years - don't you English learn when the Revolution was? Or do your schools suck as badly as some of our schools?
One must keep in mind that, while the UK and Canada may be about mob rule, the USA is designed to limit the ability of the mob. That's the whole point of the Bill of Rights - there are some things the government is forbidden to do, even (especially) if 90% of the populace want it.
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Thanks for the history lesson - Yea, english schools suck as bad as american ones (although, in our defence, we're not exactly proud of losing the war of independance - so it's not exactly as important a date for us to remember as say the battle of Waterloo, or the defeat of the spanish armada).
I don't honestly believe any "democracy" is about mob rule... And England certainly isnt a democracy (Think you americans have farcical elections? The government leaving power over here only had the votes of around 16% of the population (40% turnout * 40% of the vote) yet had a 160-ish seat majority... wtf?)
Although, in defence of the 90% argument - "...Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed..." - therefore, if the 90% don't like it, they should be able to change it - "...it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish [the gov't], and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness..." - i think this predates the Bill of Rights? And is held in no small amount of regard by Joe 6-pack? Just a thought.
Programming is an Art. I am an Artist. Does that mean I get to wear a daft hat?
Yah, that's a justification for revolution - if the Canadians (or anyone else) wants to do a revolution, more power to them. But that doesn't mean the current government should listen to the whining (whinging, to you Brits) of spoiled children in the meantime.
And finally, a somewhat less august source, warning about revolutions: "Meet the new boss, same as the old boss".
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"