Slashdot Mirror
Canada Introduces DMCA-Style Copyright Law
P Starrson writes "The Canadian government this afternoon kept one promise many could live
without. It introduced new copyright legislation that will bring
DMCA-style legislation to Canada (backgrounder
and FAQ
here but bill still not online). Professor Michael Geist has
apparently seen a copy and points out on his blog
that while the bill does not go as far as the United States, the
proposal is full of new rights for the music industry with precious
little for users."
Here is the Slashdot story with links changed to mirrors:
P Starrson writes "The Canadian government this afternoon kept one promise many could live without. It introduced new copyright legislation that will bring DMCA-style legislation to Canada (backgrounder and FAQ here but bill still not online). Professor Michael Geist has apparently seen a copy and points out on his blog that while the bill does not go as far as the United States, the proposal is full of new rights for the music industry with precious little for users."
Dashboard Widgets
They didn't introduce a new law, they introduced a new bill. It's not a law yet, and hopefully won't be.
Please don't make such misleading headlines.
FTA (emphasis mine) This does not alter the right to make a personal copy (including a P2P download) but does set some tough limits on what users are entitled to do with those copies.
That will be next on the entertainment cartel's radar.
Trolling is a art,
No it's not the user's fault. How many people are going to care enough to vote for another political party because they passed a copyright law?
Not enough.
But it doesn't, not unless lobbying/bribery and plutocracy is outlawed. The "elected" government is currently representing the will of a monied elite: case in point, the european software patent issue, where 90% of respondents surveyed by the european commission didn't want software patents, but were told they weren't an "economic majority": pure democracy vs plutocracy.
Here in canada, like the states, the major parties are very capitalist (Liberals and Conservatives) in nature and support the corporations fully, so you should not be shocked when the gov. lets corporations get their way. Of course, here in canada, the NDP (new democratic party) is the 3rd party (with 19%) of the popular vote, and since it's left-leaning, would be the only party likely to support any sort of consumer rights. If your in the US, both the Dems and Reps are more towards the right (say, compaired to canada), so you have got to expect more right-wing thought...alos, in the US, there is way more relgion in the mix too.
To that end, one should look to Boycott-RIAA.com. Also, for general use, googling the artist name and "RIAA" tends to find out the information you're looking for . . .
I for one do not buy RIAA music. Though I did buy two other CDs this year, and go to a concert.
I hope more people start doing the same.
In the USA, UK or Canada for that matter, the vast majority of voters do not elect the politicians, their votes don't matter.
Like the USA and UK, Canada uses a first past the post electoral system. More like the UK than US there are 3 significant parties (4 in Quebec) and the governing Liberal party received only 37% of the votes. In the UK, the governing Labour party received only 36% of the votes.
With first past the post electoral systems you get what are called safe seats, constituencies which constantly return the same party, even with relatively small percentages of the vote (well below 50%).
Anyway. The majority (the 60%+ who didn't vote for the government) simply don't matter and are basically not represented.
Deleted
I agree with you totally, and I'm going to take your logic a step further.
In addition to the fact the young people in the US don't vote, the flip side is the music industry putting money behind politicians. In a bipartisan system, it isn't a big issue to put money behind BOTH candidates. Analysis of party lines will notice that there is less of a difference between democrats and republicans than ever and both cater to special interests.
Young people don't vote in presidential elections, but more importantly, they don't vote in local elections for the house and the senate. They don't vote for local councilpeople and for mayors. So it's pretty safe to ignore us.
I wanted to start reversing the trend. I went to an election a year or so ago for local councilmen (I'm in New York). The district had over 500,000 people in it. The guy who won had 580 some-odd votes. I got there and it felt like visitng my grandmother's house. I swear no one under 65 was there... except me.
The fact that we don't vote is teh sux, but the fact that we don't really have a choice in a bipartisan system that harbors the illusion of difference is even worse. I have no answers, but voting democrat/republican is pretty much voting for the same thing.
un burrito me trampeó.
In an election that was mainly a fight over The Religious Right (Corporatist) vs Corrupt Corporatists where you are lead to believe that it MUST be one or the other, few people realise that they CAN vote for a Non-corporatist party ( or another, or another)
Here's what we do:
First, don't panic.
Once a bill is introduced, the following must happen. You should know this if you're a Canadian.
1. It is read for the first time in the House of Commons (which has apparently been done.)
2. The bill goes to the Senate, which will set up a committee to go over the bill and modify / approve it.
3. The modified bill will go to the HoC again for a second reading. If passed again, it returns to the Senate for further editing.
4. After the Senate looks over it again, it goes back to the HoC for a third reading and announcement. Once the law has been announced, then it goes into the Copyright Act.
Note that many laws have been passed but never announced, making them unenforceable.
To prevent this bill from being passed, do this:
1. Call and write and email your MP. It's free to do so in Canada. Go to their office and tell them that you want to talk about the bill. (Know the number before you go down.) Don't expect to meet with them. You just want the staff to know that someone was there about Bill C-X and who doesn't support it. Remember that they have their faxes full with US fundie groups complaining about gay marriage.
2. Tell them that you vote and your friends vote. This shouldn't be a lie. (I think that if someone says they don't vote, it's okay to hit them since it's self-defence.)
3. Tell them that if this passes, it's enough to get you to vote for a party that doesn't support it.
4. Remind them that free distribution of Canadian content keeps Canadian culture alive. (Hint: Tragically Hip >> Nickelback.)
5. Talk about the levy placed on blank media that compensates the recording industry.
Two other things of vital note:
1. In Canada, the loser pays the court costs. It's not like in the US where you can bankrupt someone by suing them. If you get in trouble, lawyer up. If your ISP calls, get them to forward all communication to your lawyer.
2. The ISP can charge for providing the information to the industry. I use Shaw, and I can't possibly see them passing up free money. I mean, come on, it's Shaw.
3. Set up a neighbourhood network. Get a good router and let your neighbours in on it. Keep the network open. Keep no records of who has what IP address. Then they have no idea who's doing the infriging since you don't know either!
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
While this is simply the most bullshit thing i've seen in a while, i believe this time, the thing that's been having everyone on nerves about canadian politics lately could very very well work to our advantage.
By this, i mean the fact that we have a MINORITY government ( to all you Us people, this means the party ion power has less votes than the majority required to actually vote things. which means, they have to ally somehow with other parties to pass laws).
Tonight, i'm getting all the email addresses of all the people i know in the area, and i'm gonna send the first ever chain letter i'll ever send in my entire life ( because i totally hate the frikking things, they are inacurrate, and half the time fell into urban legendhood ) be, get this, WE ACTUALLY HAVE A CHANCE to have this tossed off. Tomorow, i'm gonna find out who the hell got elected in my district, and go and have a frank talk with him or her about why this is a ridiculous idea, that was essentially pushed for by corporate agenda and that it's something that Canadians don't want.
The politicians know they've got an election coming off, with the Gommery commission ending soon and all. They know they must get all the votes they can.
And right now, if we convince enough people, we can get this overturned before we egt another majority government that can do pretty much what it wants.
Peace and happyness to you, by LullySing
Yes but, if your vote is not even recorded there is no way for them to fight over your vote. Even if they both suck at least they will dance for you to get your vote.
And, if it's evident that your candidate had the advantage and lost then we can say that the system is corrupt and someone has to pay.
Look at the new democracies in eastern europe. People forced the system to change because their vote wasn't being counted or they demanded the system to be fixed.
my 0.02
http://www.downhillbattle.org/ is an extraordinary organization that does just that.
I've been working pretty hard against this for years. I have phoned up my government representative and tried to talk to them about the issue but realistically, people in government do not understand the issue and are voting blindly. I have documented the proposed changes to law in this Q and A (no surprise, the background is in US legislation). There was a lot of interest from concerned Canadians, including a petition (with thousands of signatures).
Personally, I will never again buy music or media that originates from an artist under the membership of one of the industry associations (CRIA, RIAA, MPAA) that has lobbied governments and fooled our politicans. From now on it's rentals and second-used (used) media only for me. Please help keep your money out of the hands of these associations; they are already dying, let's finish them off.
I will not shed a tear for them. These ridiculous laws are not in the best interest of citizens or consumers, at all. You can't convince me otherwise no matter how you spin it.
And sign the petition. This site originally started as anti-DMCA in Canada and that's still the basic idea. But yes, definitely get in contact with your MP.
Unfortunate, although probably technically correct), because it was one of the most clueful things I've yet to see a court say about the media levy... If you make it legal to receive, you gotta make it legal to give or you didn't really accomplish anything.
:)). Meanwhile, I can continue to download content while trying to work within the system for change. I've already left a couple phone messages with my MP's office, and written a few letters.
True enough. But I can't be prosecuted for somebody else breaking the law. I don't do a whole lot of downloading anyway (one great thing about liking mostly stuff that's older than you are is that eventually you find yourself with a complete collection
My big concern is with their provisions regarding illegal copying of protected content, and circumventing mechanisms in place to prevent copying and to collect user information. As a user of a non-Redmond OS, would I be breaking the law to even listen to my music on my PC?
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
Look them up here
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
If you check out this article by Michael Geist, you can see the various parties' stances on copyright reform.
Summary:
Liberal - Middle of the road. Basically For.
NDP - For
BQ - For
Conservatives - Against
Green - Against
Very surprised particularly at the NDP and Conservatives stance. I voted Green last time in any case.
The full text of the Toronto Star article linked from the link above to avoid registration:
Parties the same? Not on tech issues
Surprising answers emerge from surveys
With much at stake, there's little debate
MICHAEL GEIST
LAW BYTES
With the federal election now just one week away, millions of voters are sizing up the national parties' positions on a wide range of issues. For those interested in technology law and policy issues -- including copyright, spam, and privacy -- the election campaign has been a disappointment as technology policy has barely registered on the election-issue radar.
While it may be understandable for technology policy to take a back seat to health care, national defence, and tax policy, an election campaign would be an ideal time to generate discussion and learn about positions on issues that typically stir debate throughout the year.
In recent weeks several groups have tried to capture the attention of the national parties and local candidates by posing questions on technology law policy and posting the responses online. The Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) at the University of Ottawa, online at http://www.cippic.ca/ distributed a questionnaire to each national party covering key copyright policies issues including positions on music file sharing and Internet service provider liability as well as on spam, the use of open source software, and national ID cards (in the interests of full disclosure it should be noted that I am a faculty adviser to CIPPIC).
Similarly, Digital-Copyright Canada, a user and creator group, posed similar copyright questions (http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ to each local candidate across the country, while the Canadian Teachers' Federation asked each party for their views on copyright issues of concern to the education community.
With responses in hand from four of the five major political parties, different visions of Canadian technology law policy have begun to emerge.
The Liberal party sits squarely in the middle on these issues. Although the party's response speaks predominantly in generalities on copyright matters, it is revealing as much for what it says as what it does not.
First, the party pointed to the controversial blank-media levy as evidence it has worked to ensure Canada's copyright policy is modern and progressive, a surprising illustration given the opposition to the levy from a broad range of stakeholders.
Second, while the party noted the ongoing copyright reform process, it tellingly made no mention of the recent Canadian Heritage committee copyright report, perhaps seeking to distance itself from the report's recommendations. The committee, chaired by Toronto-area Liberal MP Sarmite Bulte, has drawn the ire of educators, Internet service providers, and copyright experts for adopting a one-sided perspective that fails to account for the interests of all copyright stakeholders.
Ms. Bulte herself offered a spirited endorsement of her committee's recommendations just days before the election call, concluding that the exceptions proposed by groups such as the Canadian education community to facilitate the use of the Internet within our schools was the wrong approach, characterizing such exceptions as leading to "freebies." Given the Liberal emphasis on education, its move away from Ms. Bulte's position may foreshadow a reconsideration of the recommendations should it form the new government.
The Liberal party also responde
Normally, I would post this anonymously to avoid being a "karma whore", but since it's late in the day and the story has been up for a while...
The following is mentioned every time a Slashdot story is posted about Canadian copyright law, but it deserves to be repeated: fellow Canadians, if you want to do something constructive about this, there is a website set up to lobby against this bill, at http://www.digital-copyright.ca/
According to that site, there is a Member of Parliament (MP) with an interest in this issue, who presented the first petition against this bill back in April 2005 around the time the first Slashdot story broke, and a second petition in May: Peter Julian, New Democratic Party (NDP), MP Burnaby-New Westminster.
DMCA for Canada is not acceptable
u se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E
/ statement_e.cfm
Written Friday March 25 2005
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; summer is approaching), 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.
3. Set up a neighbourhood network. Get a good router and let your neighbours in on it. Keep the network open. Keep no records of who has what IP address. Then they have no idea who's doing the infriging since you don't know either!
You forgot, be in violation of your acceptable use policy. Not only that, but also you are to be held responsible if you are aware of such activity.
Read the article(s) more carefully next time.
It's only illegal if you defeat the copy protection for the _purpose of copyright infringement_, which only applies when you copy a copyrighted work without permission from the copyright holder and for purposes that are not explicitly protected by the copyright act, such as personal/private use and fair use.
use your brain(?) more carefully next time, before you accuse me of not reading the article when you obviously haven't read the article yourself:
"Professor Michael Geist has apparently seen a copy [of the actual bill] and points out on his blog that..."
[...]
"As expected, the TPM provisions do not cover devices that can be used to infringe. Rather, they target persons who circumvent for a purpose that is (sic) constitutes copyright infringement or for the purposes of making a private copy.
[...]
the defense expressly excludes private copying from its ambit. Therefore, Canadians may be asked to pay several times for the same work as they may pay once for the CD, once for the digital download, and once through the private copying levy for the blank CD. Attempts to circumvent protections on the CD in order to make a personal copy (a copy already paid for via the levy) will now constitute infringement in Canada."
this was never mentioned in the previously published "backgrounder" or "faq", but the news is the actual bill will now hand record companies a legal muzzle to prevent private copying, without amending the blank media levy regime that pays them millions in royalties for that very same copying.
Now that the bill has been posted, The question is a little clearer.
...That's a little better. So projects like or Dijjer are not required to keep tabs on everyone that uses the network.
From the bill:
40.2 (1) A person described in paragraph
40.1(1)(a) or (b) [ie, an ISP] who receives a notice of
claimed infringement that complies with subsection
40.1(2) has an obligation, on being paid
any fee that the person has lawfully charged for
the performance of that obligation,
So, the upshot, if I interpret this correctly, is that if you provide Internet access or proxy services or hosting free of charge, you're not obligated to forward an infringement claim notice or keep identification records.
Whew!