Slashdot Mirror
Canada To Introduce Copyright Law Next Week
P Starrson writes "A leading Canadian television network is reporting
that the Canadian government will introduce copyright legislation next
week that will bring DMCA-like provisions north of the border.
Amazingly, the Canadian recording industry, which previously praised
the reforms, now says they aren't good enough. Canadian law prof Michael Geist cuts through the
spin in the pair of blog postings titled Fact and Fiction
and CRIA's New Take
on Copyright Reform."
Fair use is alive and well in Canada.
d _protect-e.html#6
I pay for the RIGHT to copy what ever the fuck I want on to whatever media I've been taxed on.
That IS my RIGHT and I could give a shit how many hairs they split. Sharing MY music with my GLOBAL friends is NO different then sahring with my friends down the street. The fact that they claim a physical product must change hands to be considered legitimate sharing is just splitting legal hairs. IMFO
And according to these same laws, every school in Canada should be charged under the same act they want to charge file sharers with whenever they play "records" at their school dances! Oh yeah... get your check books out kids! No more sock hops! Fuckin' idiots!
http://strategis.ic.gc.ca/sc_mrksv/cipo/cp/copy_g
Examples of infringement
Infringement:
- reprinting an article without the copyright owner's permission;
- playing records at a dance without the copyright owners' permission;
- giving a public performance of a play without permission;
- photocopying articles for a class of students without permission; and
- taping your favourite band at a music concert without permission.
Not infringement:
- quoting a few lines of the article in a research paper (fair dealing);
- playing records at home;
- giving a public performance of a play by Shakespeare (no copyright exists/public domain);
- obtaining permission from the author and paying a fee to him or her (if requested) in order to use an article; and
- borrowing a musical tape from a friend to copy onto a blank tape for private use (a royalty payment to the owner of the song rights has been paid when the blank tape was purchased).
So FUCK THEM and my Karma! It shows how far behind these folks are... they still refer to music on tapes!
Don't be so sure it will pass.
Canada has a minority government right now; at least two parties need to go for it, or it's dead.
(Yes, we have more than two parties --- it's a democracy! :P )
That's the most offensive portion.
If they're going to make it illegal to share files, they have to repeal those blank media taxes.
Put a voice to the words.
u se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E&source=sm/this link to look up your MP by postal code, and then phone them.
Use http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/ho
Be polite, be courteous, but be firm. State, be it via voice mail or directly, that you are in opposition to the upcoming copyright legislation, and hope that your MP will vote in opposition to it.
(Whatever you do, don't state that "Although I didn't vote for your party...").
Indicate to them whether or not this is an issue your future vote will hinge on; that will get their attention, guaranteed.
"To pass through the jungle; silence, courtesy, ferocity, as the occasion demands." -- Kamau, "Proper Passage"
My letter to the Hon. Jim Peterson, ny MP:
Subject: Copying levy versus the proposed copyright bill
I'm writing again about proposed changes in copyright law,
strongly urged by our American neighbors and the record
publishing industry.
I was pleased to hear your opinion on the US-like
misuse of protection measures, and wonder if we're
going to follow our previous policy of using copying levies
instead of prohibitions on copying CDs we legally
own.
The record industry seems to confuse this with
indiscriminate file sharing, and is urging amendments
that would make innocent copiers as liable as persons
who illegally publish other's works on the internet.
I urge you to support our successful policy of
copying levies on CDs, DVDs and extend the
levies to removable disks ("pen drives") and other
iPod-like devices), instead of reducing the
consumer's right to copy their own property under
the copyright act.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
And what would you write?
Dear Mr. Big-Politics-Guy
I really like getting stuff for free. Can we please keep doing that?
How about:
"Dear Mr. Big-Politics-Guy
I really like getting to speak and act freely. Can we please keep doing that?"
I don't care about "free music". I wish all the file sharers would get caught, so we can focus on the real issue: free speech.
Copyright monopolies take away my right to create a related product, just because I didn't invent the first model. They stiffle innovation as much as they reward it, by preventing creators from building on previous knowledge and work. It's hard to make progress when you're forced to reinvent the wheel all the time.
Let's say I want to scan in a map of my neighhourhood, and cross reference it with the ads in the phone book, so that I can tell at a glance what's nearby. That's illegal, because it requires scanning in a copyrighted map, and copyrighted ads. Doing in manually is legal, because humans aren't considered copying devices, but computers are. So, copyright law is in the way here, as it is in many cases.
Did you ever buy a poster, but found it too big for the frame? Pause before you cut it to make it fit; that might infringe the moral rights of the author! The copyright act states that putting a picture in a new frame is explictly legal;but any more drastic changes to your own poster may be illegal! The Eaton's centre was sued for moving pieces of a mobile that were about to fall on it's customer's heads, because the artist didn't like how the safe version looked. Copyright means you don't have all the rights to the property you've bought outright.
Ever see a statue in bronze, and think it would look better in gold? Don't try to comission a better version; that would be illegal under copyright law! You need to get the copyright holder to permit you do make your own statues; after all, they made one, first.
Don't try to write down the plot to your dreams after watching late night TV; you see, someone owns the rights to talk about those characters. You don't get free speech rights to other people's ideas; you don't get re-cast anyone's previous works in new and interesting ways, because that kind of incremental innovation is illegal.
But don't worry: copyrights expire. In fact, my copyright to this message will probably expire in just under a century, if I live my grandfather's age. Then again, Canada is less than 150 years old as a country; so that's not saying much.
Some people want copyrights never to expire. I guess they want the guy who owns the circle to be able to forbid everyone else from building anything with wheels; and the guy who owns the square from preventing anyone from building anything like a building or a house.
Then again, some of these ideas fall under "Industrial Design" in Canada: but the distinction is nebulous at best.
If I make 20 ornate goblets, they're protected for 100 years under the Copyright Act. If I make another 40, the same 20 goblets suddenly fall under the Industrial Design act, and are only protected for 10 years. If it's the same "innovation", then why add 90 years of monopoly protection in the one case, but not in the other?
So, yes, some of us want copyrights to be restricted because of important reasons like freedom of speech and creative expression. I don't give a damn about free music; I don't download it, because it's illegal.
I do want to be able to create derivative works, and improve upon our designs at a rate much faster than one change every century. I don't think that's such an unfair thing to ask for.
--
AC