Slashdot Mirror
Canada May Lose Copyright Fair-Use Rights
DotNM writes with an article from the CBC reporting that the Canadian government is considering removing fair-use rights from Canada's copyright law. From the article: "Exacerbating the situation is intense pressure from the United States, where Canada is considered a rogue when it comes to copyright and intellectual property. It still hasn't ratified a 1997 World Intellectual Property Organization copyright treaty... Two of the most controversial issues are [DRM] and the closely related technological protection measures."
now is the time for Canadians to get out there and tell their elected representatives that they don't want US copyright. Do it now, before your politicians trade your dental plan for a keg of beer for their meetings.
How we know is more important than what we know.
Do what you can to save your country. We already lost ours.
Exacerbating the situation is intense pressure from the United States, where Canada is considered a rogue when it comes to copyright and intellectual property.
o f-use" Canada? Are we talking about the same country?
You mean, "levy-paid-to-RIAA-on-all-blank-media-regardless-
Push Button, Receive Bacon
Will it get rid of the damn taxes on CD's?
Canadians don't like to do anything the U.S. asks at the best of times, why would they start now?
If anything, a request from the U.S. would have them do the opposite as an expression of patriotism.
It's harder to get fair use rights back once you lose them. Better to fight now than fight later...
In most town you can't even spit in the street. That is stupid and as such is never enforced, will be the same for DRM. Canada is not the lawyer hive that is the US.
The Conservative Party in Canada is always on about cutting government intervention in the economy, and then goes and supports legislative corporate welfare like Bill C60. They're clearly just out to make their media friends some more bucks.
Sadly, the biggest lie circulating is that these changes will somehow better promote "Quebec culture". There's this unfounded belief out there that more and more "protections" and "rights for creators", at the expense of their customers, will result in more content. I just don't see it.
The US has some of the most restrictive copyright legislation out there, and the slide of music sales has only just now been stemmed by paid downloads. Where are the creators and all the extra content those laws were supposed to encourage? Yeah, on Youtube.com, giving their stuff away for free, rendering all these laws moot.
If the Canadian government really wants to promote Quebec culture, work with Google to put up a Canadian bilingual version of Youtube on Google.ca. This is a no-brainer, guys...
occultae nullus est respectus musicae - originally a Greek proverb
is the most insidious thing going rght now. It has the potential to usurp most of our rights ( and not just IP type rights )
One world order, here we come ( via the backdoor )
---- Booth was a patriot ----
"It's a big black market effect and so instead of 25 per cent [of the market], it's eight per cent here. People are simply abandoning the marketplace altogether, and they've made the decision they'll just download the music and worry about how the artist gets paid later."
If you're dealing with a major record label the artist barely gets paid anyway, I doubt they see the difference.
Sounds like Canada's copyright law might be going the way of Australia's, eh. Pretty soon we'll all have to move to Sweden to be safe. Oh wait, that didn't work out so well for TBP now did it...
How about some contact info for those interesting in writing the powers that be about this issue?
Once you make the entire public criminals, its easier to strip them of the rest of their rights and control them.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
I guess it really depends on the perspective here but I think allowing people
to make copies of Maria Carey's preovulation noises is one thing - killing
and maiming millions of innocent civilians and bystanders all over the globe
is another.
Bev Oda's (Canadian Heritage minister) campaign was funded by major record companies such as Universal Records. Basically the record companies are buying these new draconian laws. 'http://bevoda.ca' has recently pulled down the contact info after an obvious flood of hateful email. This has been extensively covered on http://boingboing.net/ and as usual days, weeks and months ahead of slashdot.d s_mp_in.htmly right_c.html_ ministe.htmla nadian_.htmld ents_as.html_ toronto.htmly fight_t.htmli mports_.html_ dissect.htmlw to_stop.html
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/11/how_hollywoo
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/11/08/canadian_cop
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/06/08/can_heritage
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/04/hollywoods_c
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/05/24/canadian_stu
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/15/editorial_in
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/09/29/canadian_cop
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/01/03/canadian_mp_
http://www.boingboing.net/2005/06/21/canadas_dmca
http://www.boingboing.net/2006/09/18/canadians_ho
I don't oppose this at all, however, first they have to refund the millions they have stolen by way of the blank media tax. As soon as I see some real money back that those motherfuckers stole from me when I bought backup media for my servers, we can talk about copyright reform.
I am waiting to hear back from you.
With your wallets that is, I have not bought a single music CD or movie in many years. I wish more would follow suit...
Politics is Treachery, Religion is Brainwashing
They made us get rid of the Avro Arrow, and now this???
rewriting history since 2109
JHC. We have to fight this all over again every fucking 1-4 years. Each time we win we only win for 1-4 years, and then we have to fight all over again.
If they win once, just once, they've won. Period.
How the fuck is this considered democracy? How are we supposed to prevent a perpetual slow glide down into tyrrany if they can keep passing more new laws forever and ever?
Have you ever heard of a law being revoked or reversed?
play/use.
Candadians, welcome to the American form of "Democracy", where the intangible "corpus" (corporations) has more rights than the tangible corpus (citizens).
You, too, can enjoy Democracy in America. All you need are a few million $$$ for "campaign contributions".
Oh, and don't forget to swear allegiance to Political Correctness, otherwise the Democrats will just take your money and ignore you.
that this is the only direction copyright (and all other IP law) can take you. With its original intent being to restrict access to mass media technologies (MMTs), it has to to take more draconian measures against that technology as it becomes cheaper and easier for the general public to use. There can be no other way . This is its purpose in life, and always has been, despite the spin being drilled into your head about the "advancement of the arts and sciences". It's a load of bull.
What?
Canada does not use Fair-Use in its copyright laws, it uses Fair dealing and the constructs are totally different. The actual debate in Canada is should we move to adopting Fair Use or continue to use the restricted but spelled out uses of Fair Dealing.
-Ghost
You think these are rights we still have in the US? Apparently you missed the part where the DMCA makes it illegal to excercise fair use rights if there is DRM in place.
Close observers of the file say all signs point to a new regime that will improve safeguards for major music, film and media companies and artists for unpaid use of their material, but neglect to make exemptions for personal use of copyrighted content.
Bullshit! You can reform copyright laws all you want, people are still gonna record their favorite shows and share stuff on P2P. Sharing copyrighted content, for example, is at an all time high, in spite of its illegality and all those *IAA lawsuits.
Remember the US Betamax case? Yeah, if these guys had their way VCRs would be illegal. The problem is that their business runs on a static model. They seem incapable of seeing the world differently.
You can moralize all you want about the rights and wrongs of technology but it doesn't alter the fact that it's here to stay and all the laws and lawsuits in the world won't stop people from copying (and distributing). It would be funny if it wasn't so pathetically sad.
society is going to reach a point where there occurs a critical mass of unreasonable laws.
when this occurs people will simply stop following the laws.
people will break them en masse and the police will be unable to enforce all the law breakers.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
you give them a force to unify against and encourage mass movement revolution.
its about time.
http://www.livejournal.com/users/cixel
And I would like to ask all Canadian citizens reading this to do the same. ------------- It is easy to overlook the erosion of our rights when faced with more pressing social issues, but I would like to ask you for a minute of your time to consider the implications of a change that the Conservative government is planning to make to Canadian copyright law. I'm writing you as a professional software engineer who is concerned about the planned extension of Canadian copyright into what is called "Digital Rights Management." As a person who makes a living producing work which is protected under copyright, you may find it ironic that I am opposed to this legislation. One reason for this is that in reality DRM effectively creates a monopoly environment which locks out creative individuals who are not in the employ of large corporations, and empowers those corporations to engage in anti-competitive activities. It does this by forever binding the use of things rightfully purchased to the day to day wishes of these corporations. Including limiting their use to devices and software who's producers have a financial obligation to the controlling corporation. I see no reason why our government should pass laws to protect the interests of these large foreign interests, at the expense of the rights and freedoms of Canadian citizens. The very citizens whom you were elected to represent.
-- http://thegirlorthecar.com funny dating game for guys
The majority of our troops are in Afghanistan. The third one is rowing the submarine.
When our name is on the back of your car, we're behind you all the way!
I just saw an old South Park last night - Vive le resistance!
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
percent in relation to what figure?
65% of all products are pirated?
for every 100 sales 65 of those are fakes
100 real copies are bought a further 65 are fake?
Fight Online -- send a letter asking for a balanced copyright reform: Visit http://www.onlinerights.ca/get_active/copyright_re form_action/
Your letter will read:
I am a constituent who cares about Canada's cultural policy, and I am writing in regard to legislative proposals for "copyright reform." During the last Parliament, Bill C-60 provided some very sensible approaches to this complicated topic, but it also left room for improvement. As you consider the issue of copyright reform, I hope that you will work to ensure that any new legislation is not a regression from the sensible policies set out in Bill C-60.
In particular, I do not believe that "digital rights management" (DRM) technologies should stop the public from making lawful uses of their legitimately acquired media. Publishers using DRM push aside the delicate balance between copyright and the rights of the public - a balance set according to an assessment of the public interest by legislators - and replace it with one-sided rules that reflect publishers' private interests. Even artists disagree with publishers' anti-consumer use of DRM, as evidenced by the recently formed Canadian Music Creators Coalition. Therefore, as in Bill C-60, new copyright reform legislation should not make it illegal to circumvent DRM for lawful purposes.
I am also concerned that the use of DRM can threaten computer security and consumer privacy, as in the recent Sony-BMG "Rootkit" fiasco. When content companies routinely use technological measures to control how people enjoy entertainment in the privacy of their own homes, I think we need protection *from* DRM more than we need protection *for* it.
These concerns are shared by a substantial and growing number of informed Canadian citizens. I hope that you will take them into account when considering any changes to Canadian copyright law. Thanks very much for your time.
For those that have no clue about Canada's current political situation, the governing Conversative party holds minority power, less than 50% of the seats in Parliament, and as such requires the votes of the other parties, the NDP, the Liberals or the Bloq Quebecois, to pass any legislation. The Liberals, which have the largest number of seats after the Conservatives, have also just elected a new, dynamic leader to head their party and he is out for blood. So, regardless of the legislation that is introduced it is going to be amended when the bill heads to committee (second reading), if it even gets that far. Once the bill heads to committee look for it to be sliced and diced by the opposition if for no other reason than to earn some political points with the public. A similar situation occured when the Liberals amended the Conservatives much vaunted crime reform bill and watered down or removed key sections of the legislation.
Stephen Dion, the new Liberal leader, has also indicated that he will not co-operate with the Conservatives on any legislative initiatives and has intimated that he will vote to bring down the government on the next confidence motion and force an election. So we may not even make it that far.
Don't hold your breath on this passing.
Fair use was lost back in 1710.
What?
You see it isn't the Copyright Act that dictates fair use & allows us Canadians to
download & upload whatever we want.
The Charter of Rights allows us this privilege!
And not even a government with 100% of the seats in the House of Commons
can change the Charter of rights on their own.
We have been very fortunate not to have the draconian laws that are totally one sided. We as Canadians pay a levy on all our CDs /etc when we are using said media for legitmate uses.
Listing of Canadian MP's by Postal Code
Take some time and let your MP know that this issue is important and the current buzz over the environment doesn't mean people are going to ignore this. Remember, doing nothing is doing something. That something is allowing the music industry lobby groups walk all over you and say thank you, can I have some more.
Seriously. Don't make asinine comments like that without any proof, and then do it under the guise of an AC to boot. The Conservatives have been doing their own shit for a while now, if you'd bother to pay attention. And maybe, just maybe, the US is doing something good worth emulating. I mean, they're not one of the most powerful countries in the world for sitting around and jacking off.
Cynical Idealist
Ah, that explains it. I guess I haven't been paying much attention to DRM crap, since I avoid that like the plague.
Make this a voting issue, and make it clear to your MP and other government representatives that it is. We have a minority government here right now, and an election is likely sooner rather than later. Issues like this could swing the balance of power, or make the difference between a majority or another minority government.
I voted CPC last election, but if they take away my fair use rights they will not get my vote again. Ever.
Tells their lawmakers where to stick this silly U.S. idea.
Only half of the law is in the legislation; the other half is in how the courts decide in precedent setting cases.
These statistics are 110% correct.
The charter of rights and freedoms doesn't say anything about copyright at all. There is no such thing as fair use in Canada, just fair dealing which is in fact in the copyright act.
when the overly affluent can't profit fairly, they change the rules
sadly, the result is the destruction of our common culture
A petition exists which has around 2500 signatures already and is sent to parliament as new batches of signatures are received.
[T]he DMCA makes it illegal to excercise fair use rights if there is DRM in place.
No it doesn't; that's FUD. 17 U.S.C. 1201(c) [the 'DRM' part of the DMCA]: "Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected.--(1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title."
" . . . [T]he DMCA does not impose even an arguable limitation on the opportunity to make a variety of traditional fair uses of DVD movies, such as commenting on their content, quoting excerpts from their screenplays, and even recording portions of the video images and sounds on film or tape by pointing a camera, a camcorder, or a microphone at a monitor as it displays the DVD movie. The fact that the resulting copy will not be as perfect or as manipulable as a digital copy obtained by having direct access to the DVD movie in its digital form, provides no basis for a claim of unconstitutional limitation of fair use. A film critic making fair use of a movie by quoting selected lines of dialogue has no constitutionally valid claim that the review (in print or on television) would be technologically superior if the reviewer had not been prevented from using a movie camera in the theater, nor has an art student a valid constitutional claim to fair use of a painting by photographing it in a museum. Fair use has never been held to be a guarantee of access to copyrighted material in order to copy it by the fair user's preferred technique or in the format of the original." UNIVERSAL CITY STUDIOS, INC. v. CORLEY, 273 F.3d 429, 459 (2nd Cir. 2001)
geek. lawyer.
I never paid attention, but while reading this article in an easy fashion, it suddenly struck me that these are all 'pretty' names for some public enemy measures in order to protect the wealthy elite groups whereas forcing their monopoly on art/creativity market.
are we, people, stupid enough not to realize that is the case, or what ?
Read radical news here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War_Plan_Red
if the US planned it, for going into canada, you can betcher ass the canucks have something somewhere about invading the USA
what would they call it I wonder...
every day http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Random
Please show us the language in the DMCA that "makes it illegal to exercise fair use rights if there is DRM in place?"
Nevermind, because there is NO language in the DMCA that "makes it illegal to exercise fair use rights if there is DRM in place." In fact the DMCA states exactly the opposite.
"(c) Other Rights, Etc., Not Affected. - (1) Nothing in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html
Stop believing the FUD of the Corporate Copyright Elite. "Fair Use" is still alive and kicking in the US, in spite of the money and power of the likes of the RIAA, MPAA, and the BSA!
Get a smart representative to look at the whole picture and tie this to the Private Copying Tariff, require that to remove fair use also requires removal of the tarriff. I would bet that the proposal would dissappear overnight. After all, the loss of real money seems to have more affect than the hopes of increased money based on mostly made up figures.
Though I have no doubt that they intend to keep the tariff even if fair use is gone, but legally and ethically I question how one could exist without the other.
This was bound to happen. Unless you guys fight it, Canada will be yet another statistic in the waves of destruction unleashed by greedy US mega-corporations.
My letter:
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
No one is blaming the US. It's not always about you.
Seeing that my representative is a conservative, I figure'd I'd be as uninflamatory as possible (I didn't want him to know, for instance, that I'm a card-carrying NDP member). You however phrased my feelings more accurately :)
Jeremy
Yeah, but the other 112% are incorrect, which makes it nearly 87% more incorrect than blue.
The revolution will not be televised... but it will have a page on Wikipedia
What is he referring to as "free?"
And they ALREADY paid the artists...isn't that what that extra levy on recording media you all pay up there is for, reimbursing the artists for copyright infringement that's assumed to be happening (even though there is NO evidence that GUARANTEES that the media one purchases is going to be used for copying music/movies/etc.)
Government's idea of a balanced budget: take money from the right pocket to balance...oh who am I kidding?
I'm a card carrying Green supporter right now, but I managed to get a response from Garry B. for a complaint I made about stupid airport security of all things. He wanted to know what Cannon the Transport Minister replied with. The Minister didn't reply to either of us.
Saskboy's blog is good. 9 out of 10 dentists agree.
I need say no more. Your post made my case clearly.
Yes, the DMCA allows me to excercise fair use rights IF I can do so without circumventing technical measures or cracking encryption. In short, a media critic can still quote media (the entertainment industry wouldn't have supported anything that would prevent this) but backing up my dvd so I don't have to buy another copy if it gets scratched; well, we can't have that. That fair use must be axed by the DMCA since that might mean fewer people buying copies they are already entitled to!
Dear Ms. Oda,
y right-canada.html.
I currently live with my family in north Oshawa and I have been a resident of Durham Region for most of my life. As one of your constituents, I read with concern this article recently published by the CBC: http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2007/01/11/cop
As a consumer and a content producer (I've written software professionally for the last 15 years, including a large application that I've licensed for public use and redistribution), I believe that copyright law strikes a delicate balance between the rights of content producers and society at large. Any changes to that balance must be very carefully conceived. While I obviously can't comment on the proposed changes you are currently preparing, I would like to offer some of my concerns about where copyright reform appears to be headed.
Firstly, I believe the push behind copyright reform is coming from the film and recording industries. No other stakeholders appear to have any pressing desire to reform copyright law. The software industry, in particular, realized years ago that technological copyright protection measures (euphemistically called Digital Rights Management today) were an un-winnable arms race that served only to frustrate their legitimate customers, and for the most part have stopped the practice. They seem to be happy with going after egregious copyright violators while letting their own customers create backup copies of their purchased software in peace.
Further, I do not believe that the recording industry is acting in the interest of the artists (in fact, several prominent Canadian artists have actually said as much over the last year); instead, I believe they are trying to preserve an outmoded business model (shipping information around on CDs with trucks) against the Internet, which does the same job far more efficiently. Rather than adapt to the progress of technology (for example, by looking for ways to use the Internet to expose more artists to more fans), they have chosen instead to pressure governments to enact legislation disrupting the balance of our current copyright laws. I feel such changes, especially made in haste, will disadvantage both consumers *and* artists in favour of propping up an industry that is in decline.
As a result, I feel that any changes to copyright legislation proposed by the recording industry must be viewed with a large degree of scepticism, and that changes, if any, must be made carefully and with the full consultation of the Canadian people. I would urge you in particular to steer clear of a couple of particularly misguided concepts:
1. Canada must not implement the equivalent of the "DRM anti-circumvention" clause of the American DMCA. Laws preventing open discussion of algorithms (i.e. mathematics) are perilously close to recognizing thought-crime.
2. Canada must not reduce fair-use rights, such as the right to time- and format-shift legitimately purchased content. To do so would be to criminalize ordinary Canadians for doing things they believe they have the inherent right to do.
I thank you sincerely for your time.
John Krasnay
The turncoat who represents my riding, doesn't listen to his constituents anyway(crossed the floor from Liberals to Conservatives a week after the election the bastard.) I'd have to fly to Ottawa and give the letter in person to someone.
Fosters ... spew...
Coopers!! Now thats a beer! (or Ale to be pedantic)
http://www.coopers.com.au/
You want a signature? You can't handle a signature!!
first they have tracking coins, now they oblivating peoples rights.. i say we declare war on canada. we can get our illegal immigrants elsewhere.
I'm not sure if this has been posted yet, but here's an easy way to email your MP. Just got to this site and follow the steps. http://www.onlinerights.ca/get_active/copyright_re form_action/
If you want to submit your comments as "Concerned Global Citizens", the Canadian Copyright Policy Branch has a Web Form
.I don't know if the Canadian government cares what citizens of other countries think, but I don't believe that we will ever get any real Copyright Reform until we convince our respective governments to stop being so myopically nationalistic.
"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win." - Mohandas Gandhi
I was sure they'd move from Life+50 to Life+70 before Winnie the Pooh went out of copyright, but no, the works of A. A. Milne (and a hojillion others, including Alfred Kinsey, Jackson Pollock, and H. L. Mencken) are in the public domain in Canada. If they manage to hold out for another year, the public domain will grow to include (for instance) John von Neumann.
At least they've managed to keep their laws reasonable compared to those in the U.S., though that's not saying much. If they keep being an oasis of comparative sanity, I may end up moving there. Here's hoping they'll stay that way for a good long while.
Laws do not persuade just because they threaten. --Seneca
Just remember that rights and privileges come at a cost of constant vigilance. The fact that we're all riled up at the threat of the eradication of fair use is a good start. But that's not enough. We have to do our part as mentioned in previous posts like writing letters to our MPs and spreading awareness to those "less informed". Letters mean more right now than ever due to our fragile minority government which means that the MPs are more sensitive to their constituents' concerns. So in short, do your part fellow Canadians! Your responsibility doesn't start and end at the votes. Help, nay MAKE, your Members of Parliament do their jobs by telling them that this is an urgent concern and it will cost him/her your vote!
This is the exact opposite of the US where US Representatives (and maybe Senators?) have the privilege of "franking" -- just signing the upper right corner in lieu of postage for any letters they send their constituents.
http://www.petitiononline.com/sfu2007/petition.htm l
o pic=4161
More information here: http://www.talksudbury.com/forums/index.php?showt
There is no "IF" in the statement, "NOTHING in this section shall affect rights, remedies, limitations, or defenses to copyright infringement, including fair use, under this title." - http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap12.html [copyright.gov] See the definition of "nothing" http://dictionary.reference.com/search?db=dictiona ry&q=nothing
Typical neocon Harper hypocrisy. Let's vote that former National Citizens Coalition president/sociopath out before he deforms/mames us into a US clone.
Please click on the two petitions and the letter campaign that are on the top of the right-column. These are paper petitions which are tabled in parliament, not an electronic one given Canadian parliament doesn't accept electronic petitions.
Digital Copyright Canada forum
Canada never had "Fair Use" rights to begin with, but a much more limited "Fair Dealings" regime. While there are many ways in which the US copyright act is less balanced than Canada, there are areas such as crown copyright and Fair Use where the USA is much further ahead.
Many Canadian organizations are calling for Canada to adopt a "Fair Use" regime that would clarify that things such as time, space and device shifting are not infringements. I'm just glad the case that tested the legality of the VCR and Grokster happened in the USA and not in Canada! Canadians might have gotten a wake-up-call as to just how out-of-date our copyright act is in relation to new communications media and what most people presume is legal.
See: Copyright-related Policy summary for CLUE: Canada's Association for Free/Libre and Open Source Software.
Digital Copyright Canada is also a great source for Canadian-specific information on Copyright, Patent, FLOSS and related issues. While not all of us are lawyers (Some are), we can help translate some of the myths in the media into what is actually in the copyright act or being proposed. We have two paper petitions to parliament, a letter writing campaign, and a BLOG taxonomy that allows you to see articles written about your own MP.
P.S. The Private Copying Levy (Referred to as a "tax" in various comments) only applies to recorded music, not movies or television. While it authorizes the making of private copies of music, it does not allow for private copies of anything else.
Digital Copyright Canada forum
We need the Liberals back, now
I sincerely do hope that this post was not the author's sincere belief because it indicates severe ignorance about federal politics in Canada and the policies of each of the respective parties.
Both the current policies and past track record of the Liberal party indicate that the Liberal party would be the ABSOLUTE WORST in protecting individual's rights in this particular matter. For decades (since Trudeau became prime minister and it hasn't changed since) the Liberal party has been the biggest proponent of content production and delivery in the telecommunication industry. It was Liberals who came up with "Canadian content" quotas. It was Liberals who instituted large, hidden taxes on recording media and funneled the proceeds to their buddies in broadcasting and publishing in the name of "supporting Canadian artists", and it was under the Liberals that the CRTC gained most of its power. It is important to note that the most prominent owners of broadcasting and publishing companies (and supporters of US-style copyright) at present are very loyal liberal supporters, and VERY generous financial supporters (the influence of this money, thankfully, has been reduced by new contribution regulations but it still plays a part). Essentially if the CRIA tells a Liberal to bend over the liberal would very happily do it.
Contrast this with the history of the Conservatives which is to push for DE-regulation and the streamlining and reform of the CRTC. The current Conservative industry minister Maxime Bernier is known to be a "libertarian-style" Conservative (the Canadian Conservative party is an amalgamation of mostly two groups--"libertarian-style" and "social" conservatives). He would probably be personally averse to such overly-draconian copyright legislation as the US DMCA. I think that given a convincing argument he would support the inclusion of proper fair-dealing provisions in any new copyright legislation.
If you find the conservative ideology distasteful, I would lobby your nearest NDP (or perhaps Bloc MP). The NDP is the Canadian socialist party federally so has generally supported heavy regulation, however they are also "anti-corporate" and draconian copyright legislation that appears to give most benefit to big multimedia publishing and broadcasting corporations would not be supported by the NDP. Furthermore, right now the NDP hold the balance of power in the minority gov't (the Conservatives need NDP support to pass legislation--they could get the backing of the separatist Bloc Quebecois as well but working with a separatist party would be a bad move politically). On this issue in particular (it is not really part of the "top priorities" and there may be some common ground with the Conservatives and NDP) there could be a very reasonable chance that the gov't with give PROPER consideration to voter's concerns. I figure that if we had a majority Liberal gov't that they'd just sleepwalk through its passing if they did anything at all.
Harper v Canada has nothing to do with it, its not a copyright case. He was fighting against spending limits, claiming that the law protecting voters from rich parties dominating the campaign violates his right to free expression.
If you tried to take the same (incorrect) approach to copyright law, then it would mean copyright law itself is invalid. Wether I am expressing myself in a way covered by the fair dealing provisions or not, I am still expressing myself. So copyright shouldn't be allowed to stop me from expressing myself by selling your copyrighted work according to your (lack of) logic.
That would be nice. Unfortunately, in the United States it is for courts to interpret the meaning of law, not for common sense; literal definitions; or kurttrail on Slashdot. So far, the courts have supported the RIAA's interpretation.
If you didn't notice, there's also no mention of spending limits in the charter of rights, so how could it have been a Charter case?
You'll rarely see a Charter of Rights case based on anything actually written in the charter, that's not how the Charter works.
Harper felt spending limits hindered his ability to get his message out, therefore spending limits violated section 2b "freedom of expression" of the Charter.
Now take our case of wanting to copy music & movies to a different medium or format so we can watch or listen to them on all our different devices.
The music & motion picture industry wants to prevent us from having this ability by removing fair use/fair dealings. This move violates the Charter also by limiting our freedom of expression.
Keep in mind Private Copying (which is what were really talking about here) was added to the Copyright Act in part because of the Charter of Rights.
Do you remember when the cable company's were trying to charge you for a second T.V. if it was attached to the cable in your house. That little cable company practice didn't last long once the charter of rights came into being.
Now consider the motive of the recording & motion picture industry for removing fair use/fair dealings, they expect us to also purchase the same product again to view or listen to it on a different device.
And there we are right back in a Charter case just like we were with when the cable company's tried to pull their crap on us.
The Copyright Act is important, but just because they change it's wording to say we can no longer rip & burn our music & movies onto other mediums or to different formats doesn't mean it ends there.
It still has to withstand a charter challenge, I can assure you these changes will fail a challenge on the basis of section 2b of the Charter "freedom of expression".
Making a copy of a music CD for personal use is freedom of expression, selling that same copy goes beyond the bounds of personal use & freedom of expression in this context. If you created the content then making a copy & selling it would fall within fair use & be protected under freedom of expression, there is a difference!
You are seriously uninformed. The charter predates cable companies trying to charge extra for having more than one TV, and it does not stop them from doing so. Your ability to WATCH something that SOMEONE ELSE CREATED to express THEIR views is not a matter of your freedom of expression. The charter is completely and totally irrelivant. You seriously need to talk to a lawyer if you think that section 2b has any relevance at all to copyright law limiting your ability to copy other people's works. Copying something is not expressing yourself.
First off, no matter how quickly it ended, the cost in lost trade during that time would exceed any possible benefits that the war brings by a thousandfold. And if the losing side engaged in any kind of scorched-earth policy (destroying their mines, refineries, oil fields, hydro-dams, etc), the lost trade would easily cripple the economy of the winner for years. If they mananged to take even a fraction of the enemy's infrastructure with them, their economy would lie in shambles for decades. We depend on trade with each other THAT much.
You mention these hunters ... think how easy it would be for citizens of either side to infiltrate each others' cities. Guns are not hard to get in either country. Any big city in Canada or the US has an ample supply of black market firearms. American currency is easy to get in Canada, and no one will bat an eye if you spend American currency in canada (I'm not sure about the converse case). A dozen well-placed snipers could pretty much shut-down a medium size city for days, if not more. No politician would be safe. And if some resisters got really serious? It would not be hard at all to start going around murdering the families of anyone who fights in the enemy's armed forces. Talk about demoralizing the troops fast.
Think what a major city's police force could do. The special tactical units are highly trained, and to operate in urban environments under conditions not at all unlike guerilla combat. They've got body armor, powerful weaponry, light explosives, tear gas, smoke grenades, vehicles optimized for getting around in a city quickly. They have a command-and-control structure already in place. They have informants and contacts everywhere. They know their city better than anyone outside of the local taxi company (and who says that the taxi drivers haven't been recuited by the insurgency as well?) Urban cops are bad-asses in every sense of the word, and I'd imagine that they would form the core of any urban insurgency if a major US city were occupied.
Of couse, America is essentially unassailable. Canada would need to attack with thousands, possibly tens of thousands of tanks and support vehicles, even assuming that the US military and national guards were nowhere to be found. Just dealing with the little militias that would pop-up all over the place would such an enormous task that you would NEED heavy armor and lots of it. 300 million people, and spread out over one of more sizable land-masses on the planet. It's a logistical nightmare even for the American government, let along a government that's trying to occupy that territory and deal with an insurgency. Add to it the fact that America has all the local industries necessary to run a brisk trade in home-made bombs, rockets, machine guns, cannons, and probably even things as surprising as armoured combat vehicles and aircraft ... This all makes for a nation that would be so challenging to occupy that even collecting the world's entire GDP would not be enough of a benefit to justify the cost. And we haven't even gotten into how the attacker would deal with the actual US military.
And that's for Canada (or Mexico, I suppose). For anyone else? No hope in HELL. An amphibious assault of the North America is probably the most expensive way a nation could ever devise to get their military destroyed quickly and completely. A handful of east and west coast militias armed with nothing more than shotguns could probably do the job, albeit at great cost. Throw in some modern equipment and support?
LOL! Until a court rules or Congress makes a law that specifically says that an individual's circumventing of Copy Protection for their own personal and private use of their legally purchased copies of copyrighted material is illegal, then I have really have absolutely NOTHING legally to worry about. And as of yet NO US court has ruled that, so actually it is up to me, kurttrail, to interpret the meaning of the law for myself, and myself only.
And that's the way copyright law works in the US.
If you want to be FUD-ed into believing you cannot legally circumvent copy protection for your own private, non-commercial use of your copies of copyrighted material, then that is your choice, but there is NO law and/or NO court ruling to base that choice on, only FUD.
As for me, I'll continue to base my "fair use" choices on my own literal interpretations of copyright law, and ignore the FUD of the Corporate Copyright Elite and their lackeys, any day of the week, until the courts or Congress specifically state otherwise.
My ability to watch or listen to something I purchased (something someone else created) on a medium or in a format I choose is exactly "Freedom of Expression". By denying me that ability your violating the Charter.
Take any product from bubble gun to a toaster, from a music CD to a DVD movie, a bicycle to a automobile. If I choose to use any of these product's in a different manor than they were originally intended, that's my right. Section 2b of the charter is what enforces that right.
Do you listen to yourself? Watching a movie is expressing yourself? Do you seriously believe that? If that were true, then copyright would be shot down, since it would still be expressing myself just as much to watch movies I never purchased at all, and to provide copies for other people to "express themselves" by watching something and not expressing themselves in any way, shape or form. Don't you know a lawyer you could talk to about this? You sound retarded.
Actually, after ex-Liberal Wajid Khan crossed the floor, and became a conservative, the balance of power is with the NDP, and not the liberals.
I would be very surprised if the NDP let this pass.
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.