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."
It seems like there's a new story on this a couple of times a week. I remember the very first time I heard anything at all (some Senator was pushing some nefarious bill that alledgedly was going to give some "rights" to the music manufactures to help them "control" music as it became more and more digital...). I laughed out loud to myself (is that possible?). Anyway, fast forward to today, and I'm amazed at the progress the music industry has made.
I watched in amazement as unexpected shills stepped forward to support the music industry in their quest to strip consumers' rights, most notably (or at least the one I can remember) Motley Crue. Further thought brought the logical conculusion these shills were entrenched in the music machine and stood to defend their obscene incomes... The bands that are popular are mostly (not all) there by serendipity. There are tons of excellent musicians out there waiting for their turn. So, Crue, et. al., dig in!
And now? Canada? Blame United States!
Regardless, I wish I wish a cohesive movement could arise and say, "no more", though I don't have a clue how to start that. Any good organizers in slashdot land? I don't know how a movement would manifest, but it seems groups have been able to pressure networks to not show shows, why can't the consuming music public apply similar pressure? I for one would be willing to commit to ZERO purchases of any media (dvd, sacd, cd, etc.) for one calendar year. Others? Other ideas?
When will "the users" realize that they elect the politicians?
Money can buy influence, but in the end it is each "user" in that voting booth that should be throwing out those elected officials that don't respect them!
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Does it at least have a better name than Digital Millennium Copyright Act?
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.
...The Canadian Government was sued today by the RIAA, for copyright infringement, over its DMCA act. "Mine, mine, mine! Precioussss!" squeeled the head of the RIAA, on the One Law being returned.
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
The people who create something evil, or the people who copy them
Sigs are for Terrorists.
I went to a talk last year given by legal counsel for the EFF about the DMCA, efforts to remove it, and very limited success, and I realized that even the lawyer made one fundamental mistake: they refused to acknowledge that people really do steal significant quantities of music/movies simply because they don't want to pay.
Until the anti-DMCA crowd accepts and acknowledges that, even though they produce crappy music, people are actively stealing significant quantities of music/movies, they will NEVER gain traction against the well organized lobbying groups.
The DMCA contains WAY TOO MANY horrible provisions, but the fact that it's defended so harshly by the RIAA/MPAA is indicative of the fact that they are quite desperate. Yes, the recent music sucks, but no, that's still no excuse to steal it. Until the anti-DMCA side is willing to accept a law that reinforces the standard copyright laws in a REASONABLE manner, there's very little chance that the DMCA is going away.
Video Phone Blogs send video messages straight to the web.
when is the recording industry going to start charging for singing inthe shower?
The moral is, the USA isn't really more corrupt or backward than many other governments out there. They were just the first to get it because that's where most the money is, and that's where the pressures of the information age hit first.
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,
I place the blame squarely on you, America. This was a great place to live, to go to school, to pirate music and raise kids until you moved in across the border.
Sincerely,
Canada.
"Yeah, well, Dracula called and he's coming over tonight for you and I said okay."
They didn't introduce a new law, they introduced a new bill. It's not a law yet, and hopefully won't be.
...
OK, let's all sing along to Schoolhouse Rock - "I'm just a bill, yes, I'm only a bill, and I'm living up on Parliament Hill. And someday, the Dark Lord hopes and prays, that I will be a law, but today, I'm just a bill."
or words to that effect
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
But is it stealing if you never would have bought it anyway. The music/movie industry would have you believe that every download is a lost sale at full retail price, yet you are not railing against this untruth from the industry.
To me, stealing is taking a tangible object. Stealing a CD from a music store has taken something of value that cost money to produce. A download by a person who would have never bought the song, or can't buy the song -- and many versions of older songs aren't yet even for sale as singles -- hasn't cost the industry a cent, yet they claim losses of billions.
There needs to be a better quality of truth on both sides of this issue.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
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.
And please try to restrain yourself from the obvious follow-up that they'll never have to do this because eternal copyright is just around the corner.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
AC comments get piped to
The DMCA isn't a problem. It's a nutcase law, I give you that. But it isn't a problem, since the law counts for everybody.
Applied with a good sense of creative nonsense it can protect anybody from anything.
Apply the DMCA to ways to access your personal data and sue anybody who sends you comercial mail into next wednesday.
The DMCA only becomes so oppresive in the US because they don't have the 'loser pays all' paradigm. Which is the only way any civil legal system makes sense. Not having 'loser pays all' is the next best thing to corporate fascism (sic).
Here in germany I have a friend that has trouble with big players in his field bringing up heavy legal caliber against him (he's into booksales on the web and it's about the german pricefixing law for books, even Pearson is involved). He goes to state court this month and if the corporate assholes lose he can carry on doing his business. In the US he'd be broke allready.
Bottom line: Add 'loser pays all legal expenses of trial' to the system and have every hotdog stand apply the DMCA to each and everyt aspect of their small business - and the insanity of this law becomes aparent to anybody with basic brain functions. And it will eventually disapear.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
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
To me, stealing is taking a tangible object. Stealing a CD from a music store has taken something of value that cost money to produce. A download by a person who would have never bought the song, or can't buy the song -- and many versions of older songs aren't yet even for sale as singles -- hasn't cost the industry a cent, yet they claim losses of billions.
Exactly. The reason theft is wrong isn't that you get something for nothing; it's that you deprive the owner of the use of what you stole. If I take your car, you can't drive; if I take your CD, you can't listen to it. But if I make a copy of a song on your CD, we can both listen to it; I gain something, but you lose nothing. It makes no sense to speak of stealing something that isn't scarce.
Furthermore, even in cases where downloading a song causes someone not to buy it, it still isn't stealing. No one owns their expected revenue, and no one has the right to demand money from everyone who enjoys something they worked on. Negative reviews are responsible for more loss of expected revenue than any illegal copying - should we lock up Roger Ebert for preventing movie studios from getting the profit that's rightfully theirs?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
> In the US he'd be broke already.
Common enough misconception - one that undoubtedly scares a lot of people into giving up rights.
Court fees are not as expensive as you've been led to believe. If I'm ever sued, there's no way I'll give up one single item of process. Have a hearing on EVERYTHING, and don't waive your right to have a jury at EVERY hearing.
Doesn't cost that much. I've done it. Won, too.
"Loser pays all legal expenses?" The obvious abuse there is for someone to file suit on some trivial matter, where the defendant is clearly wrong, but have millions of dollars in legal expenses paid to some lawyer who is a partner of the plaintiff.
-fb Everything not expressly forbidden is now mandatory.
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.
Enforcing and Amalgamating Trustworthy Copyright Regulations, Assurances and Protections -- Countering the Onerous, Nefarious and Stupid Underming of Many Elites' Riches
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
Did you read the blog at all?
His analysis says pretty clearly that downloading through p2p is still considered legal. It always will be as long as there's still a levy on every blank media purchase.
According to TFA, the real concern is that this *bill* (still hasn't been passed into law) would make it illegal to circumvent anti-piracy mechanisms on CDs and such. In other words, if there's garbling to prevent playing a CD on a computer (and likely old CD players too), it'd be illegal to hook up your CD player's line out to your computer's line in and record the songs directly. Likewise, it'd become illegal to circumvent some proprietary copy protection that collects your name and vitals when you rip a recording for personal use.
The only conclusion I can make is that they really don't want people buying their crap, which is an objective I'm more than happy to help with. If it happens, then I guess my solution would be to switch back to cassettes... for all of one album every couple of years.
If you believe everything you read, you'd better not read. - Japanese proverb
In my opinion, there is very little chance of this passing. Parliament is set to recess for the summer and this bill would have to go through first reading, second reading and committee or report stage and finally third reading all before summer recess or risk dying on the order paper. The Liberals are having trouble enough getting the same-sex marriage legislation to third reading stage, never mind a bill introduced this late.
I think the bill was introduced as a way of deflecting criticism for delaying implementation of recent WIPO intellectual property agreements and to appease lobby groups clamouring for action on the "theft" of music and movies on the internets after several reverses by the courts.
Q7 "Legitimate access as authorized by the Copyright Act, will not be altered.
3 9796
Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however.
See the Copyright act section 80
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39673.html#rid-
At the very least they shouldn't lie in the FAQ describing a new law.
Time to contact your MP, remember it is free to snail mail them.
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
There are four parties right in the Commons with two independants as tiebreakers. Since the Liberals introduced the bill they are obviously going to vote for it.
That means they need the support of one more party (and possibly an independant) if this bill is going to pass. The Liberals will ask the NDP to pass this bill, but I think this bill might go against the pary policy (protecting peoples rights).
That leaves the oposition (The Conservative Party)which will not vote with the government and the Bloc, who hates the government. That means that if the NDP doesn't vote with the Librals this bill will not pass.
There is some hope.
Of course, being able to download legally isn't exactly worth much if it's not legal for someone else to upload. That was, IIRC, actually a point made by the original judge in the CRIA case up here, but the appeals court quashed that because it made a conclusion of legality far too early in the proceedings.
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.
c.
Log in or piss off.
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
Boycott the RIAA and they'll just blame the decreased sales on piracy. That's their universal excuse for everything.
Q: "How come you're not selling as many CDs?"
A: "Because of piracy."
Q: "Are you sure it isn't because your music sucks?"
A: "Nope. Our research and focus groups have carefully developed a special style and formula that will generate hits as easy as using a cookie cutter. Each one is a guaranteed chart buster. The only reason they aren't is because of piracy."
Q: "What about the people boycotting sales of your CDs? Is that affecting your sales?"
A: "Boycott? Why would anyone boycott us? No, it's only a justification to pirate more music."
Q: "How come you haven't been able to establish a strong market in China?"
A: "Piracy. Duh!"
Q: "What about Antarctica?"
A: "Yup, piracy there too. Damn polar bears."
Q: "I hear that there's a new artist out that's selling really well. Is it because they're finally making fresh music that people enjoy?"
A: "Nope, it's because we've stepped up our efforts to fight piracy."
Q: "So I guess your shit don't stink, huh?"
A: "Pirates keep stealing it, so it doesn't linger long enough for the odor to fester."
Q: "Is there anything good that has come out of piracy?"
A: "Heck yeah! We're reaching incredible profit milestones thanks to our lawsuit business model. I strongly recommend it for any business, but don't follow SCO's example though."
Q: "Is there anything pirates are NOT to blame for?"
A: "Bush getting elected."
5. Talk about the levy placed on blank media that compensates the recording industry.
IMO, this should be the first point to mention, because this argument alone should be sufficient to either destroy completely any ambition from the CRIA to sue people or, at the very least, make the levy on blank media disappear.
But seriously, if the blank medias were not levied, do they even realize I would have hundreds (or most likely, thousands) of dollars in my pocket to spend on CDs, DVDs and shows I truly like. Yes, I buy a lot of blank media.
You are more than the sum of what you consume. Desire is not an occupation.
Look them up here
What is the robbing of a bank, compared to the founding of a bank? -- Bertolt Brecht
I write software for a living. The time it takes to put out a software product is scarce. The money I am payed or which I must invest for creating that intangible and "0-cost reproducible" stream of bits is scarce. Reproduction costs are irrelevant; there must be something to be reproduced to begin with, and that something is scarce.
You're making a classic mistake here. You're entirely correct, of course, that the time it takes to make a program, a song, or a movie is a limited resource, but once that time has already been put into making it, the program/song/movie itself is not scarce.
I also write software for a living, so I know as well as you do that programming time and talent is scarce. But there's a difference between programming and programs. Just like a mechanic or a barber, I don't worry about what someone else wants to do with the fruits of my labor, since I've already been paid for it. The only way someone could "steal" my labor as a programmer would be to sit me in front of a computer and force me to write code.
When you distribute works (books, music, movies, software, whatever) without the copyright owner's permission you are stealing something: the compensation to which the author is entitled for creating it.
If you don't own something, no one can steal it from you - and you don't own potential revenue.
Moreover, the author isn't entitled to get paid just because he made something. If Universal Studios spends $200 million and two years making a terrible movie, and it gets such bad reviews that no one ever buys a ticket, have the reviewers "stolen" something from them? Of course not.
And more importantly, even if everyone who reads those bad reviews decides to download the movie instead of buying a ticket, the studio still isn't entitled to anything. They're in exactly the same situation whether those people download the movie or just sit at home doing nothing; the only difference is that in one scenario, those people get to watch the movie anyway, which harms no one (except themselves, if it really is that bad).
But you must know this already. Otherwise, I must presume you have nothing against taking GPL code and selling it as closed binaries.
Actually, in a world where everyone was free to reverse engineer, decompile, change, and redistribute software, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. Thing is, we don't live in that world, we live in one where misusing GPL'd code creates an unfair advantage.
But the UNfair use that so many are trying to justify with the above "argument", and which is practiced on a massive scale, makes elected representatives easier to convince that these laws are necessary.
One man's "fair" is apparently another man's "UNfair". Take the trading of TV shows, for instance: last night, due to a TiVo scheduling mishap, I missed the new episode of a popular show. Luckily, I was able to download it via BT a couple hours later. Nothing wrong with that, right? Whether I watch it on TiVo or on my PC, the result's the same: I have a recording and I watch it hours after the show airs.
Now what if I didn't have TiVo, and I just downloaded the show every week? Still fair? After all, whether I pay $13 to TiVo every month shouldn't affect my ability to watch this show; TiVo has nothing to do with the show. Same argument applies if I don't own a TV.
And yet the studios are still up in arms about TV shows being traded, and every pro-copyright argument applies just as well to free-to-air TV shows as it does to songs and movies. Copyright isn't about getting paid, it's about dictating the terms under which someone can reproduce a chunk of information.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
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.
If you want change, I suggest you start a real petition. Don't worry, I'll sign.
In High School I was involved in the model parliament program.
The 'Senate' is merely a delay to let the real politicians time to prepare for the next reading. They aren't a consolatory body like the British House of Lords, but rather a dirty, antiquated waste of flesh and taxpayer's money. The consolatory committee is made up of MPs, not members of the Senate, with proportional votes to change the clauses to a bill.
You're mistaken when comes to legal representation.
It is far easier in the States to sue for damages as you can pay your lawyer a percentage of winnings, which effectively can pass all the risk to the firm handling your case. This is illegal in Canada.
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!