Canadian DMCA Bill Withdrawn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 Geist doesn't speculate on why the legislation is being withdrawn, but it could have something to do with the massive popular outcry against the proposal that Geist helped to orchestrate.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

Re:the usual

[ToriaUru]

Yeah, well, apparently, Dr. Geist looked carefully at what the Minister said. He also noticed what was in the throne speech. If you read this entry of his http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2295/125/ you'll see where he noticed what was mentioned and what *wasn't* mentioned. Therefore inferring what it contained. Also, in this post of Dr. Geist's from a House of Commons debate http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2321/125/ Again, what was spoken of, and what *wasn't* mentioned. Therefore inferring it. So, as to whether or not he's being fed info from the Minister's office directly? I'd not know that. But we can always hazard a guess. :) I'd say "yeah, likely".

Nothing wrong with copyright

[daBass]

I do not see anything wrong with copyright; if I spend a lot of time and money into creating something that can so easily be copied, there should be some protection against that. I also have no problem with RIAA and MPAA going after those who blatantly share music and movies; just because the industry make enough money to be profitable through their preferred distribution channels does not mean I should just get it for free. Eventually most people will be connected to the internet so fast and sharing will be made so easy that nobody will go through the legitimate means of obtaining the content they want.

That said, I DO have a problem with legislation like the DMCA or any DRM. If I have paid for a perpetual license for personal and household use, including any guests present, for content, I should not be limited to how I should be allowed to store and play this content. Yes, giving a copy of a movie to a friend is bad, but moving it to my media server and letting him watch it in the guest bedroom when he is visiting should be fine.

Unfortunately, temptation is too great and I don't always practice what I preach; I do download, though mostly TV series that I either can not watch at all in my region or that I can't be bothered to find. I don't like downloading someone's recording, I would much rather pay a little money for it and get it straight from the source and reward the creators. Unfortunately, they won't let me. And even when they do (we have some content on iTunes), the pirated versions are of much better quality.

Take for instance "Bender's Big Score"; only R1 NTSC with no R2/4 PAL version even announced. This is a true geek show, how much money do you think they would have made overnight if they made a 4GB 720p version available for a $10 download? As a true fan I had to see this and was left with no choice but to download a pirated copy. I might buy it when it comes out, I might not, but in any case the studio and distributers have proven themselves complete retards not to offer their geek movie to the geeks in the way that geeks want.

To conclude, I feel that just because we can we should not just copy everything left right and center, but the truth is that we do and the industry mostly has themselves to blame by not keeping up with what consumers want. And that makes them retarded because the internet is the easiest form of distribution ever invented and they completely fail to exploit it.

Re:Nothing wrong with copyright

[daBass]

I do not see why anyone should not be allowed to make a good investment and then live off it for the rest of their lives. Are we really going to force people to produce more?

It would be like doing 10 years of good investing on the stock market, retiring on $10M dollars only to be told 5 years down the track to hand all your capital gains over because you are not allowed to enjoy the fruits of your work; you must keep working.

And why would I pay for something new the artists created when I can have so much stuff that is only 5 years old for free?

I know the corporate IP holders are crying all the way to the bank and would do fine with a little less profit from their back-catalog, but what about the independent artists, are we going to have two rules? It would be nice to have more of our cultural heritage lapse into the public domain, but I feel it is a much more complex issue than most people realize. What you are proposing is pretty much communism and after 5 years anyone can get it for free, but it would also mean anyone can make money on it!

Imaging a 5 year rule and "Top Gun" has become public domain years ago, but most people can not get it easily, so someone WILL make money of selling copies on DVD. Not to mention TV stations broadcasting it for those not able to download or afford the few bucks for the DVD copy and selling commercials. Should the original creator really be shut out completely? And how is the TV station going to get their broadcast quality copy? Someone has the physical medium, most likely the corporate entity that created the film. Is there going to be a law that states the copy MUST be handed over or supplied at cost to the anyone who wants to broadcast it? Do you really think that in that case stations would buy much new material? I think not and it would be counterproductive to your "artists would have much more incentive to produce new works".

What about spending a lot of money scanning and cleaning up the negatives and re-releasing it on Blu-Ray or HDDVD? How is that going to work, a new copyright term for the new format, so that you may freely copy the DVD of Top Gun, but not a copy (converted into whatever format) of the HDDVD?

I do not think it is quite a clear cut as you seem to think it is!

Doesn't look like the Minister responsible...

[big_paul76]

Understands the first thing about the issue.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JF_dHu5fRAk

This is a video of Industry Minister Jim Prentice getting ambushed by amateur reporters and bloggers on the way to his riding association's Xmas party, and he comes across not only as not caring about anyone who isn't a CEO, but not really understanding the issue.

He may be our "series of tubes" guy in Canada.

Re:Thank a minority government

[big_paul76]

That's some nice work. I also wrote a snail-mail copy, a friend of mine who worked for federal public works once told me that for every letter the feds receive, they assume somewhere between 1000 and 10,000 people also feel the same way, but didn't write.

here's what I went with:
First I'd like to point out a fundamental shift in the way copyright law functions. Before the age of networked computers, copyright law functioned as a restriction on publishers by authors, more like an industrial regulation. If you wanted to have a business publishing books/movies/etc, you had to accept this as the 'cost of doing business'.

However, in an age of networked computers, copyright law functions as a restriction on ordinary citizens by publishing companies, and is something citizens must accept by the act of reading something.

This is a fundamental shift in the function of the law, and the enforcement of it requires invasions into the private life and freedoms of each and every one of us.

The publishing industries claim that this is necessary to preserve their business model, but I ask you, since when is it the business of government to preserve an obsolete business model? The 'content publishers' like the MPAA, RIAA, and the CRIA believe that if a person has made a profit off the public in the past, that it is the role of government and courts to guarantee that income in perpetuity. This belief is not supported by statute or case law. When the automobile first came into production, were manufacturers of buggy whips able to sue Ford and General Motors? Were producers of whale oil able to prevent the production and sale of the electric light bulb?

Furthermore, the copyright holders claim they act for the betterment of artists, but let's be honest: The MPAA/RIAA/CRIA's members have the same relationship to artists that a pimp has to a prostitute. Does the Conservative government feel that this is the sort of relationship that Parliament ought to preserve?

They'll Try Again

[Greyfox]

They always try again. If people notice the first time they try to sneak it through again and again until they succeed. They've got nothing but time and billions of dollars.

I think the correct response is every time they try something like this, push to have IP laws relaxed and clarified. Push to add transparency to the government so that the crooked deals to the corrupt politicians will be in the open for all to see. Push to make it impossible for a entity that only exists as a legal fiction to buy the law with billions of dollars. Every time they push, push back harder.

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

[Dipsomaniac]

When you have an axe to grind, all you see is grindstones.