Canadian DMCA Bill Withdrawn

ToriaUru writes to let us know that Michael Geist is reporting that the Canadian Minister of Industry will not be introducing the proposed Canadian Digital Millennium Copyright Act legislation as scheduled. That proposed legislation, discussed here a couple of weeks back, is now reaching Canada's mainstream press. Geist doesn't speculate on why the legislation is being withdrawn, but it could have something to do with the massive popular outcry against the proposal that Geist helped to orchestrate.

Comments

well done

[geekoid]

All of you that raised there voice, gratz.

The rest of you that just whined but could take the time to actually help do something:
You got luck this time, you leeching mother fuckers.

the usual

[TheSHAD0W]

It's the usual. Legislators listen to lobbyists, at least until their constituents protest their heads off. Then they'll bother to read the actual bill.

Re:the usual

[Kristoph]

I would wager that in this case, even the legislator did not read the bill (which was probably written for him), until it became clear this could become a major issue for the government.

Then once he read it he realized it was as bad as everyone made it out to be he withdrew it before anyone else could read it to spare himself and the government the controversy.

]{

Re:MPAA's response:

[corsec67]

Too bad they had to censor that song because of the FCC. First amendment, whats that?

Monopolies...

[eldurbarn]

We live in a time when "the common man" is well aware that business monopolies have a solid, historical track record of abusing "the little guy".

Copyright is simply a government enforced monopoly: allowing the copyright holder to have a monopoly on that particular piece of IP.

Like many of you, I am also a producer of intellectual property. Unlike big business, however, I don't see the need for me to have a monopoly. I am more encouraged to produce when I cannot simply rest on my butt and earn money for work that I did years ago.

As a consumer of intellectual property (gads, how I hate that term!), I simply cannot see how it benefits me to let my government grant big companies a monopoly on what is rapidly becoming our common, shared culture.

Re:Monopolies...

[QuantumG]

The founders of the Massachusetts Bay Colony also understood the danger of monopolies and decreed that of these none would be granted by government and those which arose naturally would be challenged and restricted by government. Unfortunately, they let their ideology slip and permitted 7 year long patents to be granted to encourage knowledgeable workers to immigrate to the colony. Many took up the offer and after using their 7 year long monopoly to establish themselves in the community, they fought to have their patents extended to 14 years.. then they started filing the same patent twice but with slight improvements.. the came copyright.. then came patent on all sorts of things, so many of which were hard to validate.. then the patent office dropped the requirements for working prototypes.. then the copyright office dropped the requirement for copyright registration.. then copyright terms got extended.. then they got extended again.. etc, etc.

"Slippery slope" is such a nice way to describe it.

Re:Monopolies...

[eldurbarn]

Goodness! Is that me you're talking to?

I make my living, completely and entirely, as a result of the IP I produce. I write books, scripts & music, I design performances, etc. I write software and web applications. I'm also a performer. This is my bread and butter.

As for monopoly, I stand by what I said. If you have one company who holds copyright to a significant fraction of our current culture, and markets that material as culture to perpetuate it for their own financial gains, and the copyright shall exist from this day forward until our grandchildren are all grown up and that copyright is enforced by law, then that is, indeed, a monopoly. To endorse such laws is selling out ourselves, our children and our culture.

Here's how it will PASS... and its underway.

[DaedalusHKX]

Like all unpopular legislature, first its tried legitimately. Secondly it is passed by governmental or bureaucratic fiat. They will simply make a regulation to cover it if actual legislation does not work. BATFE did it with guns in the USA, DEA did it with drugs in the USA, FDA does it to various foods, OSHA does it with workplaces (though the enforcement, from my days doing construction is haphazard at worst and selective at best).

So, it will go to a small blip or nonexistent blip on the radar, and a year down the road, the RCMP will be kicking in doors or seizing equipment based on a treaty ratified with Bun-fuk-u-stan, which states that they have to enforce whatever treaty was accepted for the "benefits of Canda's socialized welfare system".

That or the UN, intergovernmental panel on climate change will discover that Britney's pirated MP3's are actually causing global warming or costing Britney so much in lost royalties that she can't afford to feed those starving children that the UN has failed to care for over the years (Kofi Anan's son, however, managed to buy himself a pair of Lamborghinis with the money he received as "salary")

(And we know that a bunch of politically appointed "scientists" and bureaucrats are going to be FAR more correct on telling us why the earth is getting warmer each morning and colder each evening, because that damn glowing orb in the sky that has had variable output over several million/billion years is just too insignificant to really matter... its wooden stoves that heat up the earth and diesel engines, so shut down that goddamn sun and stop wasting that heat!!)

It's hit the news-wire now!

[ToriaUru]

It's now on the Canadian Press newswire. http://canadianpress.google.com/article/ALeqM5jvt3LW3hjo1fIaaiwZACBiZ0R3wA So, it'll likely be picked up by mainstream press in other countries, perhaps, now. All helping to publicize the fact that in Canada, we FIGHT for our rights! It is the True North, strong and free, after all ;)

Thank a minority government

[earthforce_1]

Thanks to the razor thin minority government that exists here right now, they cannot be arrogant and a few thousand determined people actually can make a difference. This is the way government should be - it should be scared of the people, not vice-versa. This plus an alert press ensures they do not dare try to slide a fast one under the table for well heeled friends. One massively unpopular bill could tip the scales against them and they damned well know it.

I don't live anywhere near Calgary, but I was one of the ones who (politely but firmly) e-mailed him with my objections to a Canadian DMCA and how C-60 loomed large in my mind last election.

If the current government can ignore the Kyoto accords, they sure as heck can choose to ignore WIPO as well.

Re:Thank a minority government

[Jester998]

I also sent an email (and sent a carbon copy via post ... hardcopy gets much more attention from politicians!). I don't live anywhere near Calgary either (Ottawa, in fact), but I definitely felt strongly enough about the issue to write to him.

Below is the text of what I sent:

--

Dear 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." hold very true here.

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