Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Delays to Canadian DMCA Could Doom Act

Posted by Zonk on from the getting-late-in-the-day dept.

Jabbrwokk writes "Michael Geist reports legislation to create a Canadian version of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act has been delayed again, possibly because of massive public outcry, and possibly even because of opposition from the industry itself. Canada's biggest ISPs have banded together to oppose the proposed new legislation and suggest their own solution, which include allowances for expanded fair dealing, private copying, no liability for ISPs and legislation that concentrates its wrath on commercial pirates instead of penny-ante downloaders and seeders.'"

15 of 128 comments (clear)

  1. Once more ... by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny

    ... look to the north for the "land of the free".

    Imagine, proposing laws that might actually be fair and balanced? What will those crazy Canucks do next?!?

    1. Re:Once more ... by Rei · · Score: 5, Funny

      Yes, but the Canadians have wisely avoided killing their queens or destroying their habitat. As a consequence, the queen population has remained relatively constant over the years, while our eagle populations fell dramatically.

      When was the last time you saw a queen breeding center make releases into the wild to help restore local royalty populations?

      --
      Sometimes I doubt your commitment to Sparkle Motion.
    2. Re:Once more ... by pokerdad · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Most telling is how the ISPs and judges have stood on these issues in the past. A judge in Canada recently compared the use of file sharing software having illegal uses to a photocopier in a library being usable for illegally reproducing entire books. Do you remove photocopiers from libraries just because they could be used for illegal purposes? Exactly.

      While I agree with you, I think there is an important point to be made about why this is much more possible in Canada that the US.

      In the US 90% of all media are controlled by just six companies; they make virtually all the movies, music, and television seen by Americans. They also have a sizable stake of the ISP business. This gives them both economic motive to accert the kind of control they do, and the muscle to do it (both monetary muscle, and the immense power they can have over public opinion via what they choose to put on the news).

      In Canada the situation is very different. We don't have any media conglomerates comparable to those in the states. Our movie industry, after being practically dead for half a century, exists now primarly as a cheap shooting location for American productions. While we have a music industry, in every measurable way foreign, especially American, music has dominated for a very long time. While we have plenty of home grown television stations, except for cbc they tend to show only as much Canadian content as CRTC regulations require; its quite telling that of the top 20 shows in Canada the past few years only two are Canadian (Hockey Night in Canada and Corner Gas), and before Corner Gas became such a hit HNIC spent something like a decade all alone.

      In a very real way there is a huge irony to the way American media companies have come to hate Canada. The situation in Canada, where we only produce a tiny fraction of the media we view, is entirely because of economic bullying from American content producers; quite simply they drove Canadian companies out of business. So our media companies have practically no stake in the production of content and as such barely care about things like DMCA. The media companies not having a stake means that not only do they not see draconian measures as not helping them, but it would hurt them in so far as it would create expenses for them with little reward.

      On more than one occassion various industry groups in the US have threatened to cut Canada off if we don't do something about copyright infringement. And while I really don't think they have the balls to do it, I think it would benefit us greatly if it did; possibly breathing new life into industries long dominated by American content.

    3. Re:Once more ... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think this parallel between the monarchy/figureheads in Canada and the eagle in the US is being taken just a little too literally now.

      Indeed, the Queen probably won't crap on your car.

    4. Re:Once more ... by Citizen+of+Earth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      On more than one occassion various industry groups in the US have threatened to cut Canada off if we don't do something about copyright infringement.

      I double-dog dare them to. They'd be shooting themselves in the foot by eliminating 26-million easily-accessible customers (English-speaking Canadians). But, more importantly, they wouldn't do it because they know that their rhetoric is bullshit.

    5. Re:Once more ... by thirty-seven · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Having a powerless figurehead is an idiotic waste.

      I disagree, for two reasons. One is that, as another poster pointed out, a head of state's job includes a lots of things other than exercising power: hosting state diners, doing good-will tours, giving out awards. Why not keep these roles with a specialized non-political head of state, and separate out the head of government roles (making foreign and domestic administrative policy decisions) into a political position with power.

      Secondly, and more controversially, I think that there are great socio-political benefits to having a "figurehead" who represents the state and/or nation. Having spent a fair amount of time living in both the United States and Canada, it is my opinion that the US political culture is actually more suited to a constitutional monarchy than Canada is. There seems to be a sizable group of Americans who have an almost mystical respect for the presidency, treating it as a holy office that must be kept sacred. This can lead to horror and hatred that anyone would question George W. Bush "during time of war" and also to an overreaction to Bill Clinton's sexual affair sullying the presidency. In a constitutional monarchy, such people can worship the office of the head of state without interfering with or polarizing valid political criticism, since the person who gets criticized for making political decisions, the prime minister, does not occupy an office revered as representing the state/nation, in the way that some people view the presidency or monarchy as doing.

      As an aside, a large majority of developed, democratic countries has figurehead heads of state, even though most of these countries are republics, not constitutional monarchies. They have a parliamentary system with a prime minister making most executive decisions, but instead of a monarch they have a president, sometimes directly elected by the people (Ireland), chosen by Parliament (Germany), or elected by an electoral college (India). In these systems the president is mostly a figurehead, with about the same power (or even less) than the Queen has in Canada.

      --

      Atheism is a religion to the same extent that not collecting stamps is a hobby.

    6. Re:Once more ... by stormguard2099 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Indeed, the Queen probably won't crap on your car. I'm horrified that you felt it neccesary to include "probably" in your statement.
      --
      http://greenobyl.com/ please.... think of the children!!
  2. Seriously Canada by usul294 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I know you've been lobbying for years to get me to move up north. The nice people, clean air, beautiful outdoors, universal healthcare, and now apparently a somewhat more laissez-faire approach to copyright law. Look, maybe if you rig the election to put Hillary Clinton in the White House, I might consider moving.

    1. Re:Seriously Canada by tomhudson · · Score: 5, Funny

      I know you've been lobbying for years to get me to move up north. The nice people, clean air, beautiful outdoors, universal healthcare, and now apparently a somewhat more laissez-faire approach to copyright law. Look, maybe if you rig the election to put Hillary Clinton in the White House, I might consider moving.

      We're a mite peeved at the US right now - you were supposed to KEEP Celine Dion! It was a win-win ... we got rid of her, and she kept your old people indoors at the casinos, feeding their Social Security checks to the one-armed bandits.

      And you've gone and devalued your dollar to the point where Canadians earning the Canadian minimum wage can afford to vacation in the US ... or buy a foreclosed house as a vacation home ...

      What next - reimpose the draft so we'll be flooded with asylum-seeking draft-dodgers? What's up with that, eh? Are we going to have to burn down the White House again?

  3. Dear RIAA by syousef · · Score: 4, Funny

    Your bribe isn't large enough. Please supply more money and we'll find reasons to fold on our constituents.

    Regards,

    Canadian Parliament

    --
    These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
  4. Re:Its the beer stupid by Telvin_3d · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Biggest difference in Canada? We have a habit of tossing out political parties that piss us off. We can get away with it because there are 4-5 major parties active at any one time, so easy enough to out with the old and in with the new. And there is always a couple parties that have to compete to be the new big dogs.

    And when we get rid of a party, they are gone. In 1993, one of the Conservative parties passed unpopular tax laws. They went from controlling 57% of the seats to controlling .6% (2 out of 295). Do that once or twice and your politicians will get the message.

  5. Re:Wishful thinking.... by Gorshkov · · Score: 4, Informative

    Wishful thinking. Unfortunately, the reality of practice is that the "public" has no say in these matters. More likely is that different big-money factions haven't yet decided how to portion the money up.
    Actually, NOT wishful thinking. One of the major differences between Canada and the USA is how parties & campaigns are financed. Personal donations ONLY are accepted - corporate & organizational money is strictly verboten. And in practical terms, the limits on campaign spending are so tight that pretty well any candidate with a hope in hell of winning is able to raise all the money they're allowed to spend from the voters in their riding.

    A lobby group my have more "access" to the lawmakers, by virtue of the fact that they have their offices in Ottawa .... but they can't really buy, or even rent the politicos .... their only weapon is persuasion. Because the politicians know that at the end of the day, the ones who WILL fund their campaign, and/or vote for them, are the people in their riding. Period.
  6. We have been lucky by Geof · · Score: 4, Interesting

    I am tremendously proud of Canadians for standing up in the thousands to let it be known they do not support the adoption of the failed copyright regime suffered by citizens the United States. Our action has been essential to preventing the adoption of this law - so far.

    But we have also been very lucky. The previous government introduced a bill (admittedly not as bad as what is reported to be in the current plans). An election was called before it could become law. Timing may again be on our side: the current minority government is likely to fall in the near future. If so, the clock would probably be reset.

    For us to really win this, we need meaningful consultation (i.e. where we not only talk, but the government listens) to ensure the views and interests of all Canadians are taken into account. Very few politicians understand why most Canadians would care - I suspect many of them are not quite sure what to make of the current outcry. Until recently, media stories seldom even reported that the issue had another side. Until our politicians acknowledge the significance of copyright and the public passion over the issue, we must keep fighting.

    1. Re:We have been lucky by p0tat03 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I think the main reason for the saner laws in this parliament is due to the minority. If any party has a majority we'll get some pretty crazy bills passed through the House. IMHO we should just keep minority governments around forever - it keeps legislation sane and relatively nonpartisan.

  7. Re:Its the beer stupid by yesteraeon · · Score: 5, Informative

    I certainly agree that we're not quite as bad off as the U.S. with their two party system, but you've overstated the case quite a bit. First of all, at the federal level there are only 3 national parties that actually win seats in the House (I'm not sure where you got 4-5 from). Secondly, only two parties -Liberals and Conservatives- have ever controlled the federal government. Lastly, as much fun as it was to watch the Conservatives implode in 1993, that event left us with only the Liberals having a realistic shot at winning elections. As a result, we basically had a ONE party system from 1993-2004. Which, as far as democracy goes, is pretty bad.