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."
No surprise that the Canadian music industry isn't happy with the wording. They pushed for this legislation and got it, so now they will push for harsher legislation. It's like a small child that pushes and pushes a parent to see how far they can get and how much they can get away with.
Excuse my speling.
Making The Bar Project
I thought Canada was all for fair use? Such a concept would vanish should this come into force.
Use ISO 8601 dates [YYYY-MM-DD]
First they implement a tax that specifically redresses copyright violations... then they outlaw what the tax was supposed to pay for.
You think that media tax will go away despite becoming superfluous?
Because, of course, things get better when folks just cry and run away rather than staying and fighting.
See my journal for slashdot ID's by year. Mine created in 2005. http://slashdot.org/journal/289875/slashdot-ids-by-year
"What does slashdotting mean?"
"You've never heard of slashdot?"
"I know it makes websites not work."
click on Find your Member of Parliament using your Postal Code
Input your postal code
Write letter (no postage necessary)
Can a knowledgable slashdotter help me identify what the best way to protest this legislation will be?
I want to know about:
a) What party(s) oppose this legislation?
b) What formal protest groups exist to thwart this? Are any activities planned?
I haven't protested since university, but I would make an appearance in a rally for this. I will make donations to well organised groups opposing this legislation.
Its best to defeat the law before it gets into law, fortunately we have 3 readings to defeat it.
John Maynard Keynes: "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?"
The CRIA and RIAA are suffering from the same flawed thinking, that is:
(1) Coerce/buy anti-copying/downloading/sharing rules from the government
(2) Consumers will be forced to buy your product
(3) Profit!
Well, as DCMA and lawsuits hasn't stopped filesharing in the US, I suspect that any provisions trying to stop it in Canada will have about the same effect. Better and new anonymous methods of downloading will come, and on and on it will go. However, even if they did succeed in stopping sharing etc, the result would more likely be:
(1) Tougher laws brought in
(2) Public apathy towards the industry products continues including lack of sales, save the odd star wars type blockbuster (music will always exist, but the days of the mega-star is over)
(3) Continued financial decline and disinterest!
The media industries will cry foul over the latest downloading tactic etc, while the public at large continues to not care.
If you think about it, outside of forums like these, the general public hasn't cared about these issues since the napster days. I don't see that changing.
Please write your MP to stop this bad new law.
u se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E
/ statement_e.cfm
DMCA for Canada
Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.
Send your letter for free (no postage necessary when parliament is in session), to your MP at the following address:
[your MP's name] M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Find their email address, but write by paper mail too. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/ho
Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
To summarize the issues in this letter:
1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.
2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.
Background:
http://pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/reform
Here is the reasoning:
The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.
Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.
It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.
Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other supporters of personal liberty and innovation in the arts. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
my name
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
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!
Seeings as to exercise your right to make a copy for personal use, you usually have to defeat some half-hearted digital lock (though the actual level of protection is more akin to packing twine). Sure you've got fair use rights, but the recording industry can make you have to break other laws to exercise them.
"Because Science" is one step from "Because old book". Try "Because of my experiment testing my falsifiable assertion".
RTFA. It's a *bill*, not a *law*. It's nowhere near passing, it's being introduced to parliament for debate.
Writing to your MP is a good thing at this point. But let me explain something about Canadian politics: just because a bill gets introduced to parliament does not mean that it actually passes into law. More than that, Parliament breaks up for the summer and any bills that are still on the dock at breakup usually end up getting forgotten for a while when Parliament returns to session and has to deal with important stuff again. On more than one occasion in the past, bills have been forgotten completely and never revisited after the summer break.
No, I'm not worried. I'm interested in the outcome because I run a website which has been the target of CRIA's advances before, but even if they're ever able to launch a lawsuit, there's absolutely no way they'd win the way the laws currently stand. Even under the US laws they wouldn't win....
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
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.
Well the first problem is that I think your entire story is a big fat made up lie.
But granting that this --really-- happened.
You face a lot bigger problems than p2p. Walmart sells the same CD's that you do at a fraction of the cost and your big buddies give walmart a better price break than they do you. The price walmart charges for CD's is below the price you PAY wholesale for your CD's.
Then there is amazon and other similar services. I buy most of my dvd's and crap like that online now. The product is delivered to my door and it is STILL cheaper than buying it in your store.
But there's more. 12 years ago, there were maybe 40 tv stations, no real dvd's to watch, a lot less videogames, etc. I listened to music a couple hours a week more then than I do now.
But there's still more. The music they put out these days is generic crap. It all sounds the same- most of the artists can't sing their own material in concert- and it doesn't have anything to say. I listen to new songs a couple times on the radio and have no interest in purchasingthem.
But there's still more. The price of CD's is SO expensive compared to the physical cost to make them that it just pisses me off and I wouldn't buy a new CD even if I DID like the music. I'll record it off the radio, buy a used cd, buy it off "Allofmp3.com", etc.
CD sales and profits are UP. WAY UP. So while your poor mythical store is suffering someone is selling a hell of a lot of CD's somewhere.
Next time you might also add how you are supporting your old feeble grandmother and a young child. That's what politicians always do when they want to pass another onerous law.
She was like chocolate when she drank... semi-sweet at first and then increasingly bitter.
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"
Interesting articles. The one thing that I found to be the most intersting is how this is going to work with the legislated media tax that is already in place.
When it first came out I thought it was wrong, but the government caved to pressure (presumably from the recording industry). Basically if you by CD-R's or writable DVD's you pay a 'media tax' on top of the purchace price (it is included in the price you see, they used to break it down for the consumer). However this is a very stupid tax as the limits are retaded (tax size is based up media storage capacity!), as this also includes things like ipods, and the like. Are CD players, nope. Is general memory, nope. But if a device is basically a big memory stick or HD that plays music, it is taxed. The real evil part of this tax is that it ASSUMES that everyone is a Buccaneer (Yar!). You could buy CD-R's for nothing more than stright data, yet you would be paying a media tax as they assume that they will be used to copy music or something. I am not sure about USB drives, but it would not surprise me if they are taxed as well. Very evil stuff considering out legal system and the whole innocent before proven guilty etc...
In a slightly unrealted note, this errosion has been happing in Canada for sometime now, under the guise or reasoning that the courts cannot handle the volume. Or that it is too expensive to try every case. An example of this is giving the powers to cities to write parking tickets, which most use maninly as a revune stream (not its intention I don't think). I got a parking ticket in Ottawa about a year ago (not where I live). The short version of the story is: I was never issued a ticket! I get a letter in the mail, saying I owe 40$ for parking tickets. I call the city and try to explain to the the issue, they do not care. Their response is that if I had a problem with it I COULD fight it in court. However, I would have to drive 250km on a work day in the middle of the week at least once, at the cost of at least 400$. Or I could pay the ticket. They warn me if I do not I will not be able to register my car when it comes up. So I can pay 400$ and fight it, or just pay the (and therefore pleading guilty of the offence) ticket of 40$. I paid the ticket, even though it was wrong. Most definitions I read would say this is stright up extortion, but whatever. Just thinking about this whole affair again boils my balls. Anyway enough of this rant. Back to regular programming.
Civil liberities aside what is really interesting is the recording industry cannot have it both ways. If legislation is passed making downloading and copying music illegal, then they cannot justify having a "media tax" anymore as I see it. You cannot tax an illegal activity (as that legitimizes it). Thats like making the crack dealer, pay tax (or even more funny in Canada, making his crackheads pay GST on their spank). Why not just tax murder while your at it, 10$ a head I say! However once a tax is in place it is VERY hard to get rid of it (GST anyone!), I bet you anything they will what to have both worlds.
Another of my favorite examples of this lunacy is I once heard a story about a Canadian that got caught selling cocain in Vietnam. The government there, sentanced her to death by firing squad, AND fined her 100,000$. The big joke eveyone was saying was "if I were her, I wouldn't pay the fine". The only differenace here is in Canada, IF they keep both the tax and pass the coyright bill it will be like eveytime you buy media, they convict you, and fine you, and if someday that ACTUALLY catch you doing it, they will try to convict you and fine and/or jail you. So in esasnce its like Canadians paying a mandatory tax on cocain, then if they are caught, fined. So in this case you cannot help but pay.
Anyway my rant is now very long and makes little sense even to me anymore. I am not sure why I picked all the drug referances, only that they are illegal.
Anyway thats my 2 cents (or twenty bucks as the case may be)
It is so frustrating to me to see so many governments getting the intent of copyright and patent completely backwards. The power of these two concepts to drive innovation is in their *expiration* and not in their original issue. The idea behind these concpets is that if the creator wants to continue his nice exclusive income, he darn well better come up with something new and cool before the old income dries up.
Grrr...
What?
"feel the need to heavily drink"
:)
You've also got American beer. So that's FOUR reasons your country sucks.
If the music industry had its way, we'd have to pay every time we hear a song. E.g., on the radio, every time we hum a song, and every time we even think of a song to ourselves.
Heck, even DJs would be obligated to pay, as they shouldn't be allowed to hear the music for free.
And double heck, anyone listening to you humming would be obligated to pay too.
If someone says he and his monkey have nothing to hide, they almost certainly do.
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