Slashdot Mirror
Canadian DMCA Won't Include Consumer Rights
An anonymous reader writes "As protests
mount over the Canadian DMCA, law professor Michael Geist is now reporting
that the government plans to delay addressing fair use and consumer
copyright concerns such as the blank media tax for years. While the
U.S. copyright lobby gets their DMCA, consumers will get a panel to
eventually consider possible changes to the law. Many Canadians
are responding today with a mass
phone-in to Industry Minister Jim Prentice to protest the policy
plans."
...the more content that slips through your fingers.
(apologies to Lucas, et. al.)
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
Thats the way to deal with it: 'you don't get any rights, and if you don't like it, you can appeal, if we feel like listening to you'
---- Booth was a patriot ----
Use all means necessary to prevent this sort of behavior from becoming acceptable (i.e. "just the way things are") in Canada. Support independent recording artists and smaller labels who don't engage in draconian contract measures. Don't buy the mass-produced, pop culture oriented crap that's on sale at your local Huge Media Outlet. All you're doing is feeding the legal budget of the lobbying arms of major recording labels.
Support other creative artists who choose to license their work under Creative Commons style licenses. My personal policy for one site I manage is that all article content must be CC licensed.
Most importantly, tell people about your views. Ordinary people on the street. People you work with. Anybody, everybody. You enjoy a system of government where you're allowed to speak your mind... that's sort of a "use it or lose it" proposition in my opinion.
Does this mean you should stop contacting your elected officials. Hell, no. But take your personal, proactive action of your own instead of just waiting around for your elected leadership to make good decisions for you.
512 MB RAM, 20 GB disk, 200 GB transfer, five datacenters. $19.95/month.
High-ranking means he kissed a lot of ass to get there, so he'll be damned if he steps on any toes.
Maybe I'm wrong here, but isn't it quite common in Canada to deliberately create a law proposal so bad it won't pass as that is some times easier than opposing it? I.e, if politics is such that you can't officially oppose something, then you just create a stooge proposal which is doomed to fail instead. At least that's what a Canadian friend of me claimed, so I figured maybe this is a bit like that? Of course I could be wrong, I don't really know enough about Canada to be sure.
that's what, about 85% of the US DMCA?
You haven't seen the latest exchange rate. It's actually a bit more than 100% of a US DMCA.
One man's -1 Flamebait is another man's +5 Funny.
In Canada there are only two kinds of elected officials: The Prime Minister and everyone else. Only one of those has any power. It's always been a problem, but it's been ten times worse with this government.
In Canada, we have a semi-hidden theocracy of Steven Harper (the prime minister). Anyone that does not agree with him, is his enemy. Even in his own party.
:(.
:( Where are you Reform???!
:)
When some MP from maritime wanted a better deal for his area than was being offered (and the provincial gov't there wanted it as well), Harper threw him out of the party. Then under pressure, did the exact deal that MP wanted. When asked if the MP that was thrown out would be allowed to rejoin the party, Harper essentially said that he will *never* be part of his party ever again.
Or, he was saying that gov't would be accountable to its people and all other stuff, BS as it turns out. The day after he got a *minority*, he *appointed* a *non-elected* person to Senate *AND* into his cabinet!!! No one from the Conservative party disagreed even the former Reformers - quite sad.
Or, he said that global warming is not real. Then when public sentiment changed, so did he and now he proclaims that his party will somehow fit it now and that is a serious problem. Major flip-flopping there too. No one disagreed on that magic 1984-style switch.
Or, let's help the poor by cutting GST but screwing them with income taxes. Poor older people on fixed income are probably hardest hit here. Instead of drastic cuts in GST, he should have cut income taxes, but I guess it looks better if you pay $0.02 less on cup of coffee than $100 on a paycheck. The only people that disagreed were the conservatives - none were MPs.
One can go on and on here. While Liberals where in power, he said that Canada betrayed US by not going with the 2003 invasion (something that US didn't even want anyway). Now he said he never supported that. Essentially, Harper to Canada is like Bush to US. You disagree with him, and you are the enemy. He is always right. The only thing saving his butt right now is the giant surpluses that started when Paul Martin was the finance minister (good finance minister, very bad prime minister
So essentially, high ranking or low ranking in Harper gov't means nothing. You have to follow the Harper dogma or you'll be kicked out. Any criticism is NOT tolerated.
Will this DMCA pass? Depends. Depends if it gets a vote and that depends only if Harper wants it passed. If he does, it will go to a vote no matter what the Justice minister thinks. The only ones that can stop him are the opposition parties (its minority gov't) - fortunately Liberals are aiming for an election soon so it may be more effective trying to prod their Justice critic over this (or maybe even Dion?) than the Conservatives.
I would categorize my self as a definite fiscal conservative, but Harper is definitely NOT a conservative. He's as much of a conservative as Bush is, which is kind of sad.
PS. If you are not Canadian, this post probably has some references you do not understand. That is OK
I'm going to shamelessly post after the first comment in order to get this to the top of the pile. In addition to writing letters to MPs (or emailing, which is a waste of time IMHO) this weekend there happens to be an open house at Mr Prentice's office (in Calgary) tomorrow, Saturday, December 7th from 1:00 - 3:00.
I plan on attending and srongly urge any fellow Calgarians to come to the open house.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
Honourable Ministers and Member Jim Prentice, Josée Verner, and Hedy Fry:
I am writing as a resident of Vancouver and citizen of Canada.
I would like to express my strong opposition to the changes to Canadian copyright law being proposed.
Canadian laws must work for the benefit of all Canadians. Not for specific industries at the expense of everyday citizens, and especially not foreign-owned corporations.
Artists, musicians, filmmakers and performers have a right to profit from their creations. But digital technology and the Internet have revolutionized the production and distribution of media, rendering obsolete the physical products around which copyrighted works have been based in the past.
The burden is on publishers and creators to innovate and find ways to profit from their works that are acceptable to consumers and consistent with a world in which sharing media is free of cost and effort. It should not be the Government of Canada's role to prop up antiquated business models or forcibly subsidize industries that are unable to adapt to 21st Century realities. Crippling technology and placing onerous and chilling restrictions on the ability of citizens to communicate does not serve the public interest.
I am concerned that this new bill to change copyright law will favour industry and lacks any meaningful input from consumer groups or experts on modern copyright law such as Dr. Michael Geist (U of O). Any bill should consider first the rights and interests of the Canadian public and consumers, before US lobby groups or international bodies.
In the words of Canadian science-fiction author and writer Cory Doctorow, "The US's approach to enforcing copyright in the digital age has resulted in 20,000 lawsuits against music fans, technology companies being sued out of existence for making new multi-purpose tools, and has not put one penny into the pocket of an artist or reduced downloading one bit. The USA stepped into uncharted territory in 1998 with the DMCA and fell off a cliff -- that was reckless, but following them off the cliff is insane."
Thank-you.
Live simply, that others may simply live. -Gandhi
The Liberals don't want an election, they'll get slaughtered. If the conservatives want this bill to pass they can get it through. Copyright reform isn't sexy and nobody wants to fight an election over it.
I think I'll have to wear my tin foil outfit. It's double thick and has a full hood. Should divert the shock and prevent the MP from penitrating my mind.... all at the same time.
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
Sorry forgot the address. Also remember to bring your donation to the food bank! You don't want to look like a bastard =)
1318 Centre Street NE, Suite 105, Calgary, AB
Website here: http://jimprentice.ca/
Copyright 2010. All rights reserved. This comment may not be copied in any way including, but not limited to caching.
I made a call to Mr. Prentice's Ottawa office this morning. I got a reply instantly and left a polite note stating my extreme dissatisfaction with the direction in which they were going and noting I would drop my Conservative membership if this bill is even read. I've also been mobilizing my friends and my office (one of the ladies is the wife of a senator) to kibosh this bill if it's not kosher.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
I doubt the bill, at least as it currently stands, will ever become law.
First, I would be surprised if the bill even makes it out of committee because the minority Conservatives have to beg, borrow and steal support from any and all parties for any bill to become law; they are effectively politically neutered. This has created some rather unique partnerships over the last year, with the Conservatives finding support for some bills from such ideological enemies as the left wing NDP and the separationist Bloc Quebecois. The current Parliament has been limping along like this for too long and a political showdown is coming in the form of an election. The problem is the only other party that can challenge the Conservatives, the Liberals, are laboring under an ineffective leader, an essentially non-existent platform and a divided and disorganized membership.
Second, even without the dagger of a potential election hanging over it, this legislation will almost certainly be amended, picked apart and thoroughly scrutinized by the opposition and other parties looking to embarrass the Conservatives or score political points. This is where public furor will have the most effect. If the public and affected parties can hammer home the reality of what this bill is proposing, it will leave the committee stage with amendments to the most egregious portions of the bill. Regardless, I can't think of a single piece of legislation the Conservatives have introduced since they took power that has not come back from committee without amendments. They simply do not have the votes to overturn such changes.
I am not trying to be unrealistically optimistic here, but I just don't see a need to panic -- yet. Call, write or email your MP and let them know your opinions.
I keep hearing about how wonderful Canada is, compared to their neighbor to the south, and then stuff like this happens which seems to show no regard for the common citizen at all!
Canada is a wonderful country which is run by plutocrats rather like its counterpart to the South. The vast majority of the money and power is concentrated into a few hands. The social contract gives ordinary people a slightly better shake than their American counterparts get, but if you think it's a Utopian wonderland, you should really hang out there for a few years.
The wedge is simple. Billions (with a b) of dollars are transferred from the US film and television industries to Canada for making feature films and serials. Don't think for a moment that those who send that money up there haven't had a friendly word with their MP, PM, and Premier about how they feel about Canadian copyright law, and wouldn't it be a shame if all this film work wound up in Austin or Rhode Island?
When emailing and mailing your concerns to Jim Prentice, don't forget to cc your comments to Scott Brison - Liberal Industry Critic. It's important for the opposition parties to see the groundswell against this legislation so they can hold the Prentice's feet to the fire in the House of Commons
The bill was listed on the Parliamentary notice paper and scheduled to be introduced on Monday, though it may end up on Tuesday:
In order to stop ordinary people from violating copyright, companies have encoded content (particularly music and film) so that it requires special software to access. The software embeds rules determining what access is permitted and what access is not. Unlike copyright, which is interpreted by human beings, these rules are enforced by a machine. This law makes it illegal to circumvent the machine's determination.
But the machine is inflexible. It doesn't know whether it's ok for a student to copy a journal article, for a researcher to look for security or privacy flaws, for a Microsoft customer to play music on an iPod. So the software prevents activities which are otherwise perfectly legitimate and legal. Where copyright grants control over some uses of a work, this technology (DRM) grants control over all uses. And the U.S. version of this law, the DMCA, by banning all circumvention regardless of the purpose, makes that control inviolable.
That's the first problem.
The second problem is that to decode the content, this software must be present in every device that plays it back. It's in your cell phone. It's in your DVD player. It's in your computer. In order for the law to be effective, it forbids you to interfere with the operation of the devices you own. It becomes illegal to unlock your cell phone to use it with a different wireless provider. It becomes illegal to play DVDs on operating systems other than those made by Apple and Microsoft. The only one who can determine what your devices can and can't do is someone else. You lose control of your own property.
But that's not all.
Access must only be given to the right people (companies that make the technology - DVD players, operating systems, etc.) but not to the wrong people (you and me). Who decides? The answer must be a single company or organization. They make the rules about who can play back content - and who can encode content too. You can't publish protected music for the iPod without Apple's permission. You can't make a device to play it back without Apple's permission either. These companies and organizations have tremendous monopoly power. Control of the content requires control of the technology (and of our property), which becomes control of the market.
That control does not lie with artists, authors or musicians. In fact, because the technology is primarily American, it doesn't lie with Canadians at all. This law would place Canadian innovation and Canadian culture in a position of dependency relative to the United States.
That's only the part of the law we know about. There will be more.
Oh yes, I should mention - the copy prevention mechanisms don't work. They might stop you and me from making legitimate use of material, but they don't stop the serious pirates from profiting off someone else's work - after which ordinary folks can use those pirated copies, which, because they are digital, are perfect. This raises the question: are these technologies and laws really meant to stop piracy - are they really meant to benefit creators - or are they intended to consolidate the power of the monopoly and cartel positions of certain publishers and technology companies?
Below is the text of what I've sent in (via email and CC: via letter mail) to Jim Prentice. Feel free to copy/modify it to suit your needs/views.
---
Hon. Jim Prentice:
I regret that I am unable to attend your open-house session tomorrow, 08 Dec 2007, in person; however, I would like to take this opportunity to express my concern over a proposed piece of legislation regarding Canadian copyright, namely the so-called "Canadian DMCA".
I work as an IT professional, however my background is in pure Computer Science. I often spend time performing security research. A Canadian version of the US DMCA legislation greatly concerns me -- one needs to look no further than the 'US v. Elcomsoft & Sklyarov' case to see why.
References: http://w2.eff.org/IP/DMCA/US_v_Elcomsoft/us_v_sklyarov_faq.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Sklyarov
In this instance, legitimate security research was suppressed, and the researcher arrested at the will of a large corporation. Rather than acknowledge & fix the weaknesses in their product's security, Adobe chose to use the DMCA as a sledgehammer to suppress disclosure of information they did not like.
This has obvious chilling effects -- as an analogue, if a researcher were to find a weakness in the encryption used for e.g. online banking, is it reasonable to arrest the researcher rather than fix the weakness? To my mind, it is infinitely preferable to acknowledge, fix, and continuously improve security through legitimate research. Those with criminal intent will search for these weaknesses in any event -- it is much better to discover and fix the issues in a transparent manner. As the saying goes, "When guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have guns."
Other kinds of DMCA abuse is well-documented and widespread. A few simple Google searches (e.g. "DMCA abuse") very quickly turn up many sources of information. This legislation has been used to suppress reviews or opinions which are negative towards large companies -- technically, these should be handled as a civil lawsuit for slander or libel (if they are, in fact, untrue); however, many large corporations choose to invoke a DMCA takedown notice instead, as it forces the content hoster to take down the material immediately, rather than waiting for a judgement from a court of law. It is important to note that it is *corporations* that send these takedown notices, not the courts. Under this model, 'justice' is a distant wish.
There was some research done in 2005 by the University of South Carolina which showed that 30% of DMCA takedown notices sent by corporations were improper, and even potentially illegal (unfortunately, the document seems to have been taken offline, or moved, but the previous URL was http://lawweb.usc.edu/news/releases/2005/legalFlaws.html). This is a stunningly high figure -- laws are traditionally written to ensure that there is an onus of proof before charges are filed, and that due legal process is followed. The rules of jurisprudence are critical to ensure the equitable operation of any society, but overly broad, overly powerful laws like the US DMCA allow companies with deep legal pockets to run rampant, and allows them to run a private campaign of fear and intimidation.
I wish to point out that I am not pro-piracy, but rather am opposed to legislation (and legislators) funded or supported by corporations. This is the very antithesis of a democracy, and is the current state in the US. Canada is already dangerously close to that abyss, and I do not wish to see us fall in completely.
*Original* creators of artistic works certainly desire to be paid for their works; it is for this reason that I attend live concerts, purchase T-s
If you truly want the mental disability to stop... ... don't infringe on copyrights. Don't do it. Tell anyone and everyone not to do it. While we, as a society, keep infringing on the (MAFIAA|**AA)'s copyrights (whichever is less offensive to you), we will forever be repaying our debt to them we have accumulated as a society. Simply boycotting will just make the situation worse... etc.
See, dear mod, now you can mod me something other than flamebait, because I've removed all but all offensive material from my post. Or perhaps you find the idea that someone of at least moderate intelligence disagrees with you. In which case...
I like watching TV and can't wait for the next series of American Idol. I am part of an experiment of 1,000,000 dumbasses at 1,000,000 computers trying to create a work of genius. Unfortunately, this was all I could come up with.
You know, there is a difference between trolling and pointing out the flaws in your reasoning. Just saying.
When some MP from maritime wanted a better deal for his area than was being offered (and the provincial gov't there wanted it as well), Harper threw him out of the party. Then under pressure, did the exact deal that MP wanted. When asked if the MP that was thrown out would be allowed to rejoin the party, Harper essentially said that he will *never* be part of his party ever again.
You could put any prime ministers name in above and it would still be materially correct. While Canada has a senate, it populated by inactive patronage geriatrics appointed by (and buy) the Prime Minister thus is just a high priced rubber stamp.
That is, in Canada we elect term dictators. No recall either. So MPs have to vote the party line dictated by the PM or they are so screwed. Senate reform has been talked about for years, but no one in Ottawa wants this democracy in Canada, they enjoy the plutocratic nature of our government body.
Canada is a wonderful country which is run by plutocrats rather like its counterpart to the South. The vast majority of the money and power is concentrated into a few hands. The social contract gives ordinary people a slightly better shake than their American counterparts get, but if you think it's a Utopian wonderland, you should really hang out there for a few years.
Your statement is right on the money. Mod parent up.
For our American readers, imagine you get one vote for all of the US federal government. You cannot vote independently for your Congress, Senate or Executive branch (President). The prime minister can even choose when to have the next election up to 5 years out! So when you vote for the leader, he in effect controls Congress and the Senate.
Oh, an no recall. After elected the PM can and often does what the hell they want without regard to their constituents or voters at large.
Given the nature of how parties fund themselves, it is plutocracy for sure. Needs to change but first we need to find a leader who is insightful and not so corruptible.
I do disagree about the "slightly better" shake. The hidden price Canadians pay for this is quite high.
Isn't there a copyright on the US DMCA that would prevent these things?
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
To: Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca
My book, "Using Samba" is available free on-line, and
therefor attracts readers.
Because it's horribly bulky to print oneself, my readers
happily buy professionally printed copies from my publisher.
This caused the book to have been O'Reilly's best seller
for the quarter in which the first edition came out.
I do not wish the Government of Canada to restrict in any
way my freedom to distribute on-line copies, or to let
others, well meaning but without understanding, interfere in
my electronic distribution of the book. That blatantly
interferes with my making money from it.
Sincerely,
David Collier-Brown
davecb@spamcop.net
There hasn't been time to make this an "official" move of the Calgary Unix Users Group, but a number of group members are planning to show up at Prentice's office at 2:30 PM.
My proposal is to deliver one message and have everybody just walk out without asking questions or getting into debate. We'll leave behind a printed copy with names, addresses, phone numbers on it of people who couldn't be there. It's not a "petition", its just a threat. (Why mess around.) The proposed text I posted at the CUUG mailing list is:
Mr. Prentice, my companions and I are members or friends of the Calgary Unix Users Group,
basically an organization of mostly middle-aged computer professionals that operate and
program the kind of servers that run large corporations and the Internet itself. As
members of the high-tech industry, we have been monitoring the copyright debate for
over a decade now and we are all convinced that most industry-backed copyright
legislation is bad for the industry itself.
The same kind of people opposed radio 80 years ago because it 'gave away free music' and
the VCR 25 years ago when Jack Valenti infamously described it as being to Hollywood
what the Boston Strangler was to women. Your proposed legislation could easily damage
both hi-tech and artistic content industries alike as much as the proposed laws against
VCRs and radio would have if legislators of those times had been foolish enough to
enact them.
We see it as our duty as citizens, therefore, to let you know that if anything remotely
resembling this legislation is passed by this government that we will have to cast
aside all our former political preferences in favour of ending conservative party rule.
We are not talking about changing our votes. We are talking about donating to your strongest
opponents, fund-raising for those opponents, working for those opponents. Your own seat
here in Calgary is no-doubt safe, so we as rational engineers will of course devote our
efforts to seats where the conservative party is weakest. At our age and income, we can
simply afford to travel to those ridings at election times and devote a few vacation days to the
noble cause of firing you, if you do not reconsider this ill-advised legislation.
Thank you for your attention.