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.'"

7 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.

  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. 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.