Slashdot Mirror
Canada's New DMCA Considered Worst Copyright Law
loconet writes "The government of Canada is preparing to attempt to bring a new DMCA-modeled copyright law in Canada in order to comply with the WIPO treaties the country signed in 1997. (These treaties were also the base of the American DMCA.) The new Canadian law will be even more restrictive in nature than the American version and worse than the last Canadian copyright proposal, the defeated Bill C-60. Among the many restrictive clauses in this new law, as Michael Geist explains, is the total abolishment of the concept of fair use: 'No parody exception. No time shifting exception. No device shifting exception. No expanded backup provision. Nothing.' Geist provides a list of 30 things that can be done to address the issues."
A you saying it's entirely possible that in the very near future Canadians might start envying American digital rights liberties? I think my head is going to explode...
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
This is hardly surprising. The current Canadian government is more interested in mirroring American political issues than doing the bidding of it's own people.
Most of us here are embarrassed. Sorry, we'll vote better next time.
Kill it with fire.
No kidding!!! What do you say at this point?
Geist's list of 30 things you can do, linked to in TFS, is pretty good, actually, no matter where you live. Even if your country already has a DMCA-like law, you can still fight for it or certain provisions of it to be repealed. Just replace the Canadian-sepcific info with the equivalents in your country.
Furthermore, some of it just plain good advice -- only buy DRM-free music and videos, release stuff under the Creative Commons licenses. And so forth.
Most of you are gonna be like, yeah, yeah, but no one cares. That's not true anymore. Now that the MAFIAA have become a nuisance and even public enemy #1 as far as some are concerned, the public will push for change. Like it or not, most politicians eventually cave to public opinion. After all, they need the public's support in order to get elected.
My blog
After that whole dollar thing, I thought we'd never be able to make fun of Canada again.
Blame Canada! Woohoo!
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
I'd say extremely unlikely. We've been fairly (and rightly) entitled to fair use, personal copying etc for a while now thanks to the levy. All this will do is create confusion and cloud the issue.
That said, if there is any sort of Canadian Consumers user group that I could contribute to in order to help oppose ridiculous lobby-funded wastes of our government (and people!)'s time like this, I'd be more than willing to contribute...
If you are Canadian, I encourage you to contact your member of parliament and make sure they know you, as a voter, want them to put the concerns of Canadian consumers before big business (especially foreign big business).
What about television news shows? If the equivalent of the concept of fair use doesn't exist, are they no longer permitted to report on issues for which they didn't do the original information gathering? What if it's a cited work?
I admit, I only read the summary for this one, but based on the summary, it appears to be one of the first (if only) accurate Slashdot article titles ever. This truly is the worst copyright law ever conceived. For that matter, it sounds like it would take a truly stupendous lapse in the mental faculties of any politician involved in order to come to the point where one thinks that this would be a good idea.
Well, at least there's another reminder that American politicians aren't the only stupid ones...not that such is really encouraging.
Take it to the limit, everybody to the limit, come on, everybody fhqwhgads.
That does it! I'm moving to... oh wait
30 things that can be done to address the issues
I'd say better not. It'd be much better if the law would be passed in that very form. The stronger the law, the less likely it'll ever be enforced. Judges will have to impose penalties to normal people that will have just taped some program for later viewing. Probably the judge himself will have done the same. Probably most of the people voting "yes" for the law will have done the same. The situation will be really untenable, and the whole law will gather dust. If they end with a "reasonable" law, perhaps they'll end up really enforcing it.
Rome taught me patience and assiduous application to detail. Virtues which temper the boldness of great, general views.
The parliament can vote whatever-the-law they want, but they still have to apply it. And the RCMP (our equivalent of the US FBI) explicitly said that they won't go after any individual for copyright infringement...
So what's the use of a law if you're not to enforce it?
Do any of them involve the use of rubber chickens and a garrote?
"Where's my other sock?" - A. Einstein
I'd say it wouldn't fly if it were not for a few things.
- The governing minority Conservative government is borderline popular. Apart from yet another scandal from the past, moves such as reductions in sales tax, recognizing the Quebecois as nation, and the image of being strong against crime and gangs are generally approved upon. There are issues like Canada's involvement in Afghanistan and climate change where the government's stance is questioned by the opposition parties and the public at large, but not too many. A while back, polls found that the Conservatives would win a majority in the election.
- Prime Minister Stephen Harper as stated numerous times that he wants closer ties with the US. However, he is a intelligent politician and knows when and how to please the crowd [citing the government's reversal on the issue of climate change that resulted in the sacking of a cabinet minister].
- The official opposition is in somewhat of a state of disarray. Initially, Stephane Dion, the leader of Liberal Party, was passed off as inept and lacking [difficulty in speaking English and unwillingness to publicly state the party's stance on some key issues]. He backed off in making demands and criticizing the government's upcoming policy in the Throne Speech (similar to a State of the Union address by a US President). Although Dion is improving rather quickly [he's making more decisive statements - the one's that get "ooh's and aah's from the rest of Parliament" ], he has yet to make significant gain in the polls.
- The other parties (New Democratic Party (NDP), and Bloc Quebecois) would probably vote against this bill.
- Canada's politics are by and large partisan. The Conservatives (all of them) would vote in favour (100%). The NDP would vote against (100%). The Bloc would most likely vote against (95%). The Liberals would be deciding the outcome. Right now, I'd say they'd vote against (this issue wouldn't spark an election), but if other issues crop up and there are calls for an election, the Liberals would probably prop up the current government until they get their own party ready for an election.
Or just host fair use/parody/etc on servers in the US, outside the jurisdiction of Canadian courts. If it works for the White Aryan Nation whack-a-moles (who moved their servers from Canada to the US to escape Canadian laws about propagating hate literature), it can work for everyone else ...
Kevin Smith on Prince
Wasn't the woman in charge of copyright reform in the Canadian Government and in a closet relationship with a member of the Canadian Recording Industry Association?
I can't find the reference, now, but thought it relevant. Maybe someone can find it?
note to governments all over the world:
the world will NOT stop if the mega-rich media moguls make a little less money in the new 'digital millennia' (god, I hate that phrase). why do they have a 'god given right' to extort money from customers but the customers get less and less fair-use rights, over time?
lawmakers, please stop being slaves to media corporations. we all know they help pay your salary (kickbacks) but we, the real citizens, also contribute to your salary (our tax base). please don't forget you are there to serve neutrally and fairly.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Does this mean Weird Al will be banned from performing in Canada?
Don't tell me to get a life. I'm a gamer; I have LOTS of lives!
A little background may shed some light on Prof. Geist's comments. Canada has no 'fair use' law - we have 'fair dealing' which is more restrictive to users. While American copyright law describes what rights copyright owners have, and everything else is open to users, Canadian copyright law describes what narrow rights copyright users have, and everything else is restricted.
When Prof. Geist talks about time- and format-shifting, parody, and backup exceptions, these are not exceptions to copyright that are being taken away from Canadians. These are rights that, technically, we've never had. Unlike the US, which had the famous Sony/Betamax case which legalized VCRs, we have never had that debate, and consumers would likely lose if we did. VCRs and PVRs (DVRs) are in a legal grey area at best, if not outright illegal, and yet they are in virtually every home.
This leads to Canada lagging behind with adoption of newer technologies, due to the legally questionable situation manufacturers might find themselves in. TiVo just announced their entry into the Canadian market (officially) this month. How can our government move to reform copyright, and in the process make criminals of virtually everyone? How do we get out of our current contradictory mess of copyright law in Canada, through which downloading of copyrighted material from the internet is legal, and yet VCRs are not?
This bill has not yet been introduced, so we cannot even read it for ourselves to confirm or deny these rumours. That said, I urge every Canadian reading this post to write (snail-mail is best!) their MP post haste and let them know that they don't want to become a criminal every time they transfer songs from their CDs to their iPod, or use their PVR/DVR or VCR. No postage necessary. You can find your MP here: http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E/
Hon. Josée Verner and Hon. Jim Prentice are the ministers in charge of the copyright file. Write them too!
That's the beauty of Canada. This law will never pass. In fact I'd suggest that's the purpose behind the strictness of the law, to ensure it doesn't get passed and therefore everything stays the same. We've got a formula and we're using it. Maybe it's like a company that's being forced into making children's toys and they don't want to, so they always propose something absurd like the nuclear happy fun ball with pins and needles ... and their suggestions always get turned down. It's awesome.
Crap!Scratch running to Canada next election http://xkcd.com/180/
This bill has been a long time coming, and the priorities of the current government are well-established. It isn't the first time we've been down this road (Bill C-60). New anti-camcording legislation was adopted at warp speed earlier this year, despite questions about the necessity. Copyright reform was specifically mentioned in the Speech from the Throne earlier this year. Plus rumours are a-plenty on this from sources all around Ottawa, not just Prof. Geist.
... - all in agreement that this is the likely direction the government will take, and that the effects will be disastrous for user rights. This will be nothing short of a complete sell-out to American special interest groups (RIAA, Hollywood, MPAA...)
Boing Boing, Excess Copyright, Centre for Intellectual Property Policy, Digital Copyright Canada,
On the one hand I don't think it'll fly in it's most draconian form - we'll probably end up with a somewhat watered down version.
On the other hand though, my Usenet connection is likely to be humming along 24/7 for the next couple of months.
Once I was a four stone apology. Now I am two separate gorillas.
Wait a second on this idea that "Canada" signed a WIPO treaty. In actual fact, it was minions of a particular administration who decided to sign this treaty, with the usual avoidance of democratic process that signing international treaties entails these days, much to the disgrace of national governments everywhere. Think about this. As an individual, how often do you personally sign a legal contract, text to be supplied later, to the convenience of other parties? Yet apparently our government feels quite comfortable signing in this manner on our behalf.
There is no possible interpretation of democratic process in which the rights of a nation can be signed away *prior* to disclosing to the citizens of the country the precise implementation in law. Irregardless of any pretense that we, as a nation, have "already signed" this treaty, in fact, every signatory nation understands that you can't sign away fundamental democratic and constitutional rights, which includes the rights of the population to reject faulty implementations of those promises on an indefinite basis, if that needs to happen. Our minions in power seem determined to put this to the test.
In my view, what the signatory process actually promises is that the government will attempt to pass laws, within the constraints of our natiional legislative and constitutional process. In doing this much, our government is upholding its promise.
Now we need to vote this bill as presently written into the sewer, so that our government can continue their efforts to uphold their promise by doing a far better job on the next iteration. If it proves that the nation will not accept any legislative implementation of our treaty promise, then they need to go back to their treaty convention and apologize for misunderstanding the will of the people, suggest somes mean by which the failed treaty itself can be repaird, and perhaps refund in humility some expensive dinners obtained at the expense of the expensive suits of the MPAA.
Wow! If Canada keeps this up, we might have to change the "In Soviet Russia" meme to a "In Federal Canada" meme!
As described in Geist's post, the bill would outlaw VCRs.
After sitting through another insulting pre-movie commercial, nothing would surprise me anymore:
Image of a prison security camera monitoring an imate pacing his cell. Commentary (paraphrased): "he camcordered a movie, now the justice system gets to camcorder him for 10 years".
That is now actual law. With rather scary commercials to back this up. People can seriously be put in PRISON for 10 years, for recording a movie. And the rest of us get to be called potential criminals after we've just paid our $15.
And you think we're being alarmist and melodramatic? How extreme do these measures have to get? The fact that this is even being discussed outside the confines of a dystopian sci-fi novel should make you seriously afraid.
Endless arguments over trivial contradictions in books written by ignorant savages to explain thunder in the dark.
[Shakes Fist]DAMN THOSE NEOCONS!
Oh, right...the world isn't quite so simple is it?
There are a couple of rather significant flaws with your naive, juvenile view of Canadian politics-
a) The Conservative government is a minority government. Legislation doesn't pass unless it passes with a majority, which the conservatives cannot accomplish themselves.
b) Stringent, DCMA-style copyright regulations have been in the works for years -- yeah, back in the Liberal era. You can bet the Liberals will support this, because they basically authored it.
The next time your knee starts jerking to blame everything you perceive as negative on Stephen Harper, try to get some semblance of facts.
The Parliament posts its order of business .. here:
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=status&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2
This supposed "Super-DMCA" is nowhere on the list of house or private members bills.
The government never gets through its order of business anyways, so if this thing is supposed
to get tacked onto the end of the list at some future date, it's unlikely to even
get a reading during this session of parliament.
Sure smells like fear-mongering, rather than anything serious..
I worry that the entire concept of Public Domain will eventually be written out of copyright law, and exclusive rights to existing Public Domain works, such as The Bible, Huckleberry Finn, and The Wizard of Oz, will be auctioned off to the six mega-media conglomerates.
It sounds insane, but have you looked at the laws being pushed through the US Congress these days? They're little more than corporate wish lists written in legalese.
This sig, aah-ah, is comin' like a ghost-sig...
WHAT new law?
This hasn't even been tabled yet. There is a minority government in power; the opposition can shoot down anything it wants and there's nothing the government can do about it. It hasn't got to second reading, it hasn't got to the Senate, it's pure speculation at worst and in need of some rather improbable help at best. Most of the bills this government tabled in the last session (a year ago) died on the order paper (means nothing happened and can ever happen with them).
Sorry, I'm calling you on this.
BULLSHIT