Slashdot Mirror
Canada's Proposed DMCA-Style Law Draws Fire
litui writes "Michael Geist assesses the problems with new copyright legislation presented today. In short, it looks like unless it's heavily contested, Canadians are in for a worse piece of law than the DMCA." CBC News' story quotes one critic, Scott Brison, who warns that enforcing the anti-circumvention clauses of this legislation would turn Canada into a police state — which, considering the pervasive eavesdropping it would take to make sure that people aren't enjoying their rights to fair use (or "fair dealing") of hardware or media, seems like a fair prediction.
Would become criminals under the new law...
With the new law, it is going to be illegal to bypass any "digital" locks
that a content creator/publisher puts on their work.
One of these systems that is used by some Record companies prevents you from
coping a CD on a Microsoft Windows machine. The way that it works is that it
automatically loads up a program when you put the CD into the computer that
prevents the transfering of CD's music to either your computer or Ipod. This
is known as Digitial Rights Managment or Copy Protection.
But what if you a Mac, or a Linux machine?
As the software that is automatically loaded from the CD to prevent you
copying only works under Microsoft Window, it would thus be illegal to put
that CD into your Mac, as it would be a "circumvention of the copy
protection" on the CD.
This law is stooopid!
ttyl
Farrell
CAN-CON 2019 - Ottawa's only book oriented Science Fiction Convention! October 18-20, Sheraton Hotel, Ottawa, Canada h
I know the NDP and probably the Liberals will vote this down, and we currently have a minority government so the Conservatives won't be able to push this though.
Hopefully... lately the Liberals (our official opposition) have been obstaining from votes rather than trigger an election when they're down in the polls. A sad state of affairs, really.
Jeremy
Please write your MP and let them know you want no part of this bill. Please write a polite and informed message to them, encourage them to check out Michael Geist's page (link in article above). The world does not need another DMCA that empowers big media at the expenses of consumers' rights. Write your MP.
When's the first protest? It's time to march the hill.
Guess I'm glad I don't live up there for once.
But seriously, this is a scary thought to see a country changing it's laws to match this new digital age. If this gets through it could cause a ripple effect in other countries.
While I realize the likelihood of a law such as this would be difficult to pass in the US, you know there's going to be a "monkey see, monkey do" attitude and there will probably be a bit more of a stronger force trying to push similar bills through Congress.
It offers a lot of leeway for personal use in regards to ripping media to mp3 & video players.
Oh wait, that's just for non-drm'd media. Any cirumvention is an offense under this beauty.
Cynical Idealist
Hey, Canada keeps telling their southern neighbor how superior they are in all regards. Here's a way to show it by not being led by the nose by the USA.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
I was thinking yesterday after the discussion about whether it is legal to purchase music from Russian allofmp3.com. It was stated that if you actually purchased the music outside of the US then brought it back without, it would be legal.
What if I went up to Canada, purchased some blank-media including the music tax and brought them back with me to the US. Legally, I've already paid for any music downloads I do to put on those CD's, and those rights were obtained outside of the US. Right?
-Unresolved symbol? Byte me!
Very little, if any, consultation with the public or non-government experts occured in the writing of this bill; It was all behind the curtains. Perhaps not an uncommon occurence in the US, but we have slightly higher expectations here in Canada.
Big publishers are buying draconian legislation because only that will preserve their place in the world. They have gotten away with as much as they have because they control broadcast media, but fewer people are paying attention to that. We are in a race to save the internet before big publishers can destroy it. They demand the same kinds of control over the internet that they had over print and broadcast. That is, the ability to limit what can be shared regardless of who creates it. It's not about entertainment and "piracy", it's about control. The DMCA gives them channel control and the nastier provision give them ability to harass other publishers with cease and desist letters. Windows and Mac have have "copy protection" built in that enforces the rest.
Friends don't help friends install M$ junk.
There's a good chance that this is just political theatre. The Conservatives promised their big-entertainment paymasters that they would introduce this bill in this session of parliament, so they are doing so, but this is the end of the session and the bill is hugely unpopular, so it will likely die when the parliamentary session closes.
What I would like to see for is the Conservatives to make the bill a matter of confidence, the Liberals to vote it under thereby forcing an election, and then the Liberals wining a majority government by harping on this piece of unpopular legislation. This would show the politicians that bills of this kind are political suicide for whatever party introduces them.
You Americans have a fairly shitty healthcare system, but let's remember that here in Canada, there is still no such thing as a right to free speech.
Our Human Rights Commissions (provincial and national) investigate "crimes" like criticizing other people's religious beliefs, opposing gay marriage or refusing to participate in a gay marriage ceremony, and making non-violent racist statements. The extrajudicial tribunals can charge people with these crimes as a result of a complaint being made by anyone-- no police investigation, no warrant, no arrest necessary. There is no jury at the trial, and the sentences include fines and being required to disavow one's "hate speech" and profess agreement with the government.
The defendant has no right to an attorney or to an appeal, although they must pay the court costs. The judges are not elected, and so far have no oversight from any other level of government. Truth is not considered a defense-- a person may be found guilty of speech that "incites contempt", even if it's proven that their speech is purely factual.
The HRC has been caught red-handed tapping into a secured WiFi router, without any kind of warrant or approval, in order to spy on a citizen's internet traffic. Yes, they recently brought a case against someone for expressing criticism of a religion in a comment posted to a U.S.-based vBulletin message board. They suddenly dropped the charges when the story started getting attention-- but refuse to admit wrongdoing, and still claim that they have the authority to fine people for "contemptful" comments posted on the internet.
Check out Online Rights Canada's new action alert, "Tell MPs What's Wrong with the Prentice Bill":
http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca/action/firstlook/
Here's what their website says about it:
"After months of hesitation, Industry Minister Jim Prentice has finally revealed his re-write of Canada's rules of copyright. Tell your MP just what you think of it."
Free means no restrictions, ironic the FSF's GPL forces restrictions, isn't it? What's your definition of free?
So proprietary software, RIAA music, Hollywood movies and television will be more tightly controlled by the copyright holders. Maybe now people will turn the stuff off and be better off in the long run.
For a year or two, now, the Conservatives have been able to push through almost any legislation by making it a confidence motion. For those of you in the US, all major bills (budgets and any bills involving new spending), double as motions of confidence in the government. Their failure means the government falls. The main opposition in Canada, the Liberal party, has feared bringing the government down (even though they have the votes) because their party is not polling any better than they did in the last election. They either register a vote of 'abstain' or do not show up to vote where major legislation is concerned. The result is that the Liberals have given the Conservative government an effective majority in Parliament. So the major question here is whether defeating this legislation can bring down the government. Because if it is not a matter of confidence, then the Liberals will join with the other opposition parties to easily defeat it.
I came here for a good argument
More and more, I'm feeling like the sci-fi stories we've all been reading for years are becoming less far-fetched as time goes on. I'm not talking about the technology of such stories, but rather the trends of governments and societies towards insane laws that stifle freedom and progress, and which make life worse for all but a few of the citizens.
Cory Doctorow's recent story "I, Robot" comes to mind.
How do these laws keep getting pushed through in the "free world" of democratic governments? Yes, I understand the influence of lobbyists and big business, but still. Is it really too complicated for the average person to understand the significance of these laws? Or do they just not care?
Perhaps it is just a limitation of our systems of government. As a US citizen I hate DMCA-style laws. But I only get one vote for a given office, and I have to find ONE candidate to agree with me not just on DCMA, but on war, health care, economics, and all the other issues. Furthermore, I only get two choices with a realistic shot at victory, and it's likely they've both already been bought by big media.
So what's left to do? I'm asking honestly, how do we work towards change? I'm hoping for something between "angry blog post" and "bloody military coup."
twitter and Odder are the same person. An earlier thread with examples of how he uses sockpuppets and name trolls can be found here.
If you read the bill over quickly, it appears to guarantee certain consumer rights, such as copying CD's you legally bought, time-shifting and such. Closer examination, though, shows that those rights are actually non-existent. All a corporation needs to do is put copy protection on a CD/DVD or tell you they don't want you to reproduce the music or whatever and disobeying their wish would be illegal. So if the producer put "DO NOT COPY" on the cover of a CD, you're screwed...even if you just brought it home from the store.
I won't bother going into detail on the whole police state aspect to this abortion because somebody's already done so. But it's scary as hell.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
Hasn't this happened before? I thought the idea in Canada was that they propose a DMCA-like law, but even worse, simply so that it gets tossed and nothing even like it can be proposed anymore. Then later, when some copyright-nazi comes around complaining, they just point to the history books and say, "Hey, see! What are you complaining aboot? We tried to make such a law before but no one would pass it, eh."
I might call it the Jack Thompson approach. You make sure the side you oppose has some example in it that is so crazy no one takes them seriously. This law is that example. Imagine the situation, "You think 'obscene' video games should be banned? You are just like Jack Thompson then!" Instant win.
Note: I am not Canadian.
I already phoned in to my MP, Prentice, Verner, Dion, and Harper. Use this to get your local MP's mailing and phone information.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC
I plan to write some letters tonight.
Join the Empire! http://www.empirereborn.net/
The bill still has to go through committee (LOL that will be fun) and back to the house, and then the Senate. I can see an election happening long before this becomes law.
:)
Politically, this is pretty stupid to roll out, but I think Harper is feeling heat from American business interests and bowing to them - SOP for this government.
In the scrum at the announcement, there were deflections over questions over whether a kid remixing and uploading a song to YouTube would be slapped with a $500 fine. I think they know they are vulnerable on this: Vernier suddenly developed a hearing problem and Prentice was a bot, repeating carefully scripted talking points. Watch the video, it's quite amusing: http://tinyurl.com/3zvmjn
Let me assure you, while Canadians are mostly passive, people will hold this one against the government Some of you may remember when there was that outrage over Rogers Cable's negative-option billing scheme. The lesson that all governments should heed is that it's not wise to mess with a Canadian's media.
Never play leapfrog with a unicorn.
I don't HAVE an MP, 'cause I'm stuck here south of the border where "Moosehead" isn't a beer, it's a sex offense!
Geist has a page dedicated to "The Canadian DMCA: What You Can Do"
here it is:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2431/125/
Enjoy!
No sig here...
The American DMCA has many faults, but one of the more serious faults found within is the so-called "anti-circumvention law". This law essentially makes it illegal for Americans to bypass electronic locks, or "DRM", on content they own. Such a law gives unlimited power to content owners, and strips any and all rights from consumers, even rights explicitly laid out in law. This is not a "fair and balanced" approach to copyright.
Before we pass a similar law here in Canada, we must first ask ourselves what the purpose of such a law would be? The industry groups tell us that these locks are meant to protect against piracy, and that anti-circumvention legislation is therefore required to protect their intellectual property. If the goal is to prevent consumers from copying software, movies, and music, then we need pass no further legislation, for these acts are already illegal in this country (with the obvious exception of the private copying act of 1998). The act of copying such intellectual property is already illegal, and there is little sense in making it "more illegal".
DRM has extremely dire side effects. DRM stands for "Digital Rights Management", and that's exactly what it does; it controls what rights a consumer does and does not have over the media the consumer has purchased. But these are rights determined by the content provider, not by law, and the revocation of these rights becomes the province of private industry, which has already demonstrated a total disregard for consumer rights.
For starters, there exists no DRM scheme which does not also generate vendor lock-in as a side effect; music purchased on Apple's iTunes Music Store can only be played on computers running Apple's iTunes software or on Apple's iPod line of portable music players. Some DRM schemes, such as Microsoft's now defunct "PlaysForSure", are lice sensed to multiple manufacturers. However, even though you can buy multiple players from different hardware manufacturers that support PlaysForSure, when purchasing one of these players you are essentially locking yourself into Microsoft's music store.
Microsoft's PlaysForSure is an excellent example, by the way, of the problems inherent in a DRM scheme, because Microsoft has recently closed its authentication servers down [4]. This means that millions of people who bought music from Microsoft can no longer move that content to new audio players. If these consumers loose their existing audio players, or their players or computers break or are sold, then all of the music these people have purchased - music which they own - will be irretrievably lost. The only option these people have is to buy the media they already own a second time.
By enshrining digital locks and DRM in law, you ultimately give license to the content industries to write their own laws where copyright is concerned, because any rights given to consumers, even rights given explicitly under law, can be revoked by the application of a digital lock. Rights such as the "first sale doctrine", the ability to enjoy content on the player of your choice, the ability to format shift media from one format to another; all of these are taken away by almost every existing DRM scheme.
Many DRM schemes, especially in the realm of computer software, do not explicitly enumerate which rights they revoke in a clear and transparent manner to the consumer. Many times consumers are not even aware of the restrictions imposed upon them until they attempt to breach those restrictions. Rarely are consumers trying to breach these restrictions with criminal intent.
It is also important to point out that most such electronic locks are ultimately pointless; as soon as a single user bypasses the lock and posts the content to the internet, the content can easily be copied by all. Such locks will also always be easy to bypass because, from a technical standpoint, the underlying principal of such a lock is inherently flawed. All DRM schemes are based on encryption. Encryption, at it's most fundamental,
Probably 99% of Canadians don't care a whole lot about the war in Iraq. Health care yes, even though we're all covered. But taxes? That's basically what this law is. Allow me to quote Mark Lemley on the faculty of Stanford Law School: "intellectual property is a form of government subsidy". The monopoly protection this law introduces will increase the cost of music, video, computers, cell phones, and so on. So yeah, it's a tax in all but name. But I don't listen to music and I borrow my videos from the library, so the truth is I don't care a whole lot about how much those cost. This law is a whole lot more - and the more is the problem.
I care about being able to use my computer as a I wish. I care about living in a living, vibrant culture which people can engage in, rather than having it exclusively controlled by American entertainment giants. I care about not having a War on Drugs repeat waged against 90% of the population under the age of 35% for listening to music of all things.
If people like you spent half as much time actually doing something as you do criticizing those who do (or whining about those who don't) your country and mine would be a whole lot more democratic.
"With respect to audiovisual material such as films, the format-shifting provision would apply only to videocassettes and would not allow you to make copies of material stored on other media, such as DVDs."
-http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01158e.html
That's a bit obtuse. Why does it matter what media format the source is on?
As the bill stands, format shifting from old laser discs or Video-CDs would be illegal. Format shifting DVDs to your video iPod would be illegal (even for the few DVDs without copy protection). Once DVD becomes an obsolete format, it would still be illegal to format shift your content onto more recent media.
Format shifting music DVDs onto your iPod also would be illegal (which totally sucks).
Does the mean the Recording Industry can no longer collect taxes on any and all CD/DVD recordable media once it passes since it'll be completely illegal to record anything for private use?
If this gets passed, it would mean that the primary use of CD/DVD recordable media would be for data backup purposes of which the Recording Industry has absolutely no involvement and the excuse that the media could be used for private duplication is out the window since it would be illegal to do so.
I bet the Recording Industry would back off if they knew their "free money" from media cds were cutoff.
I posted this on another forum this afternoon.. Though I should paste it here as well.. ---- So, after doing some reading, I learned that our government is back at the Copyright Reform table yet again trying to pass a bill very similar in nature to America's DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act). The long and short of it is if this is passed we're going to lose a lot of the freedoms we enjoy with our media today. I suggest you read the proposed changes at the following website: http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/h_rp01157e.html - Recap version http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3570473&Mode=1&Language=E&File=48 - Entire bill Once you've done so, I'm going to bet that you will be angry that our government would heavily favor the big media corporations so heavily in this bill while taking away the rights that we currently enjoy like copying a DVD we own for personal use, etc. I strongly advise you write your MP if you do not support this bill after reading about it. If you need to know who that is or find their contact info, visit the following website: http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC The following is the letter I've written. You can feel free to send it, or come up with your own. But I urge you to do something and make your voices heard if you do not support this bill. ------- Greetings, I am usually not one to make waves when it comes to political issues, however this one effects me personally and just about every technology using Canadian. After reading through the "Copyright Reform Process - Fact Sheets" (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/h_rp01157e.html) I have several issues with your proposals. Below I am going to go through each section of the "Fact Sheet" and state my issues with them. With regards to Format Shifting (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01158e.html): "With respect to audiovisual material such as films, the format-shifting provision would apply only to videocassettes and would not allow you to make copies of material stored on other media, such as DVDs." This scares me. Looking at this statement, if I understand it correctly, and taking it for face value means that I could not take a DVD that I have purchased and put it on my iPod or other digital media players without breaking the law. It would mean that I'd have to purchase another copy of said film (that I had already purchased on DVD) for the media player of my choice. Having to buy the same thing multiple times does not bode well with me. I work hard for what I own, and do not believe that the laws of this country should dictate how I use it. "You could not circumvent or hack a technological measure (digital lock) to make a copy." This is 100% flawed. 99.9% of commercially produced DVDs have a digital protection on them called CSS and an increasing number of audio discs have content protection on them as well. If I wanted to make a backup of media that I own, that means that I would have to break some kind of Digital Rights Management (DRM) to do so, thus making me a criminal under the law. With regards to the Private Copying Of Music (http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01160e.html): On this page, you mention: "What could be copied? -- You could make a copy of music you have accessed legally onto devices you own and onto media to use with these devices. However, you could not copy music you have borrowed or rented." Further down the page you mention: "You could not circumvent or hack a technological measure (digital lock) to make the copy." I'm looking at the last ten CDs I've purchased and eight of them mention they have some form of anti-piracy measures on them. So, ev
refuge from the US. Especially BC which is just North of here. But Canada seems to be falling in line with Bush lately. Perhaps if Obama is elected, we won't see any more of that in Canada. Where the US goes, so does a lot of other countries. But we have to see Obama's relation to the music and movie industries first.
I lean somewhere liberal/green/labor. I am glad the out of touch conservatives proposed this. It will cost the conservatives a lot of points next election. They do not appear to connect with the current generation. Notably I am "old" and I don't agree with this either.
$500 fine per download, $20,000 per upload. Of what is nominally a $0.99 or less item. This is not constitutionally valid as it is a violation of fundamental justice. Still it looks pretty normal for the new police state to act ignoring citizen's rights in favor of corporations.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Bill_of_Rights
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_justice
How much longer before we give up the pretense of being a sovereign nation? Out of economic considerations, our foreign policy is written with US interests in mind, and now the same can be said of our domestic policy. We have a branch plan economy, and now a branch-plant government. I know it has been that way for some time, but previous governments at least tried to give the appearance of being a little independent from time to time. I guess with Tony Blair retired and John Howard defeated, Steven Harper has chosen to make his move and become the US' new bitch^H^H^H^H^Hbest friend.
OK, that is perhaps a tad over-dramatic, but it is clear that this proposed law was not written with my best interests at heart. The same cannot be said of the US-based media cartels who probably had more to do with the authoring of the bill than any particular civil servant or party hack.
I would like for the opposition to show some spine and vote this bill down, but I doubt that will happen. The Liberals have abstained from so many votes on issues they claim to be fundamentally opposed in order to not cause an election. As a result, I do not believe that they have the moral authority to vote down government legislation until after the next election.
It's not like the Liberals would have done anything different - this legislation is quite similar to what Sam Bulte was preparing when she had that ministry.
It sucks when your nation's legislation is written by foreign corporations, for the benefit of foreign corporations - and it really doesn't matter which party introduces it. I fully expect the government to claim that this is a great day for the Canadian consumer and how the enhanced copyright protection will benefit any Canadian shareholders of those foreign media cartels. It probably isn't good politics to tell the voters the truth at the best of times...
BTW - I wonder if the phrase "public domain" appears even once in this bill which supposedly modernizes and improves copyright?
*** Where are we going? And what's with this handbasket?
Also, write Jim Prentice, the proponent of bill C-61, at Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca
So basically what you're saying is that citizens of Canada have zero control over their government. Hmmm where have I seen this before, oh yeah United States of America... Where our government is under the control of the big corps of entertainment industry and not the will of the people (or unwilling), lovely isn't it? Seems like the same shit is hitting your fan canadians. We feel your pain.
Canada is already well on it's way to becoming a police state. "Human Rights Commissions" (commissars?) have effectively terminated criticism of the politically correct. See what they're doing to Mark Steyn, and the extent to which they have muzzled Stephen Boisoin. Also note that there has never been a successful defense in a free speech case at a commission hearing. The conviction rate is 100%.
Other people can post the links you post and make the points you make without having to resort to these dishonest tactics you find so natural.
Maybe if you listened to what fellow /.'ers have been telling you for the last few months, you wouldn't have to spend all your time pretending that other people find what you have to say interesting.
I've been happy to live in Canada because we've been keeping freedoms like this... it's a little more along the spirit of allowing people to further culture, not supress it. I am not talking necessarily about "ripping off music just to listen to it", I am talking more about allowing people to experiment and tinker with systems and produce derivative works. It kind of goes along with the whole free and open source ideals, which is something I would like to see perpetuated. Laws like these are not innovation, it's not the way the future should be going. Bullshit like this starts happening, and I'm going to have many fewer reasons to stay in Canada. If I have an Americanized "we're watching you" country, I may as well move to the United States, get paid more and taxed less.
Well, I'm Canadian. I voted Conservative (which is the political party that is vomiting up this law). I even volunteered on two Conservatives campaigns. Not again though.
The Liberals will steal my money (sponsorship scandal). So I guess... NDP? Green Party? Independents?
My vote is up for grabs to whomever isn't a) prostituting themselves for the big media companies and b) stealing from the tax payers you are supposed to be serving!
You used to be such a nice place -- an oasis of relative sanity parked next to the 800-pound gorilla. All the Canadians I've ever met were so nice, so together, and so NOT full of themselves (unlike their counterparts to the south). Great beer, universal health care, and a pervasive live and let live attitude. Why, oh, WHY do you guys all of a sudden lately want to be like us?
"Every great cause begins as a movement, becomes a business, and eventually degenerates into a racket." -- Eric Hoffer
WE DON'T GIVE A FUCK!
By now, even twitter's grandmother's dog's fleas know he uses sockpuppets, mission accomplished, let it go. I'm bored to death of whiny people with twitter obsessions. So he uses sock puppets, get over it. No one else cares. Either refute what he says, or leave it alone, it makes you all look even nuttier than twitter himself.
- None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton
... and I think we have to let the Hon. Jim Prentice know what we feel -- not that we're just "thieves" but are genuinely concerned based on losing our technological rights. We shouldn't all have the burden of government believing we're nothing but thieves!
Are there any other Calgarians who would like to protest this at his office? And with Stampede coming, would anyone like to join me at his pancake breakfast on 5 July -- some place where he can't hide from us?
I've reported factual errors and omissions in these articles, and I encourage others to do so.
VLC FOR MAC IS DYING! IF YOU DEVELOP, PLEASE SAVE IT!!
Sing with me now... Blame Canada!!
> Who is this "off" that everyone talks
> about when they are being screwed?
Probably you.
Could this have anything to do with the introduction of iTunes movie rentals in Canada? Is this the sort of deal the movie publishers were looking for before allowing online movie rentals north of the 49? Did the already know this was going through because they had some kind of handshake deal with the Conservatives?
Many a long talk since then I have had with the man in the moon; he had my confidence on the voyage. Joshua Slocum
From what I understand this bill is being tabled ridiculously close to the summer break up in Ottawa. In all likelihood it won't pass just based on that (picture the House of Commons full of MPs in their swimming trunks and camping gear looking at the clock counting down...) and also the Harper government isn't doing too well these days so it's difficult to say if an unpopular bill written only for the interests of some big companies will win him any votes come election day. You can see how much trouble they're having with disgruntled Auto Workers who happen to be the people who helped elect the finance minister.
But then again you never ever know about these things. I hope the fear of not getting re-elected is enough to stop the Harper crowd from throwing Canada to the vampires of the recording and movie industry.
I have nothing compelling to say
Thank you for your non-response to my concerns.
The allowances for copying content for devices we own are rendered null and void for any content medium that contains anti-copying technology, no matter how ineffectual that protection is. This bill would make it illegal for Canadians to archive their DVD collections, put movies they own on their own computers or video devices, illegal to put music on their mp3 players, and more.
Since when is it the government's business to enforce the failed technological approaches to copy protection by industry? They failed with DVDs, they failed with CDs, and they have failed with the new Blu-Ray discs. So, instead of the onus being on them to either come up with a protection scheme that actually works, or to give up the illusion that there is an actual protection scheme that is unbreakable, they have turned to the government to make bypassing these pathetically weak locks illegal.
I own the computer and I own the media I have purchased, and the idea of someone hacking their own property is so completely absurd it beggars belief that anyone could have fashioned this legislation.
Surely with our neighbour to the south playing at becoming a facist police state, our economy under seige from unethical countries that employ prisoners as labour, war around the world, and impurities and diseases in our food supply, the government has better things to worry about than what we do with music and movies. Get some perspective.
I will not be voting Conservative in the next election, which I hope is very very soon.
planet texture maps and more
Let's assume for the moment the projections are true. Doesn't that mean the revenues would have been MUCH higher in a Microsoft partnership since they have a virtual monopoly on mindshare and desktop access? And billions a month in revenue.
Microsoft hating aside, which is largely justified, isn't that just stupid?
No kidding, eh. Our Ministers are always looking out for us with this great legislation that will protect our rights!
It seems they got my email address from an email I sent them about this issue via http://www.onlinerights.ca/
When I sent that email I was actually surprised to receive a personal reply from my local MP himself. It took a few weeks, but I did hear back with some of the things he's been doing and where he stands on the issue.
Last i checked Canada formed because we did not want to be like americans.
What is good for the corporations is good for democracy is the only justifaction for this...
I mean really if the USA still had blacks as slaves and there lobby groups tried to tell Canada(sovereign nation) that it had to enforce slavery would we? Most likely cause it seems the conservatives will do anything to suck the TIT of big money...
IM SO SICK OF THE NUMBER ONE TALKING POINT ABOUT THE WIPO TREATY. YOU CAN'T CLAIM THE SHEER IMPORTANTANCE OF A TREATY AND THEN IGNORE OTHERS LIKE THE Kyoto Protocol... Last i checked we create laws to protect people not corporations therortical dollars.
The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age. What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians? Specifically, it includes measures that would: * expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the "statutory damages" a court could award for all private use copyright infringements; * implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy; * clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and * provide photographers with the same rights as other creators. What Bill C-61 does not do: * it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation What this Bill is not: * it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner. For more information, please visit the Copyright Reform Process website at www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home Thank you for sharing your views on this important matter. The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P. Minister of Industry The Honourable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P. Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages and Minister for La Francophonie Thank you michael geist for reading the fine print
Jedis are stupid. If they were so powerful, why couldn't they handle counseling for a kid who missed his mom?
Here was my response from "The Honourable Jim Prentice" after I asked WTF mate:
The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age.
What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?
Specifically, it includes measures that would:
expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the "statutory damages" a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;
implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy;
clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and
provide photographers with the same rights as other creators.
What Bill C-61 does not do:
it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation
What this Bill is not:
it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia
Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner.
For more information, please visit the Copyright Reform Process website at www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home
Thank you for sharing your views on this important matter.
The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of Industry
The Honourable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women
and Official Languages and Minister for
La Francophonie
After about an hour, I realised that the "technological measure" definition probably refers to the "effective technological measures" described in the 1997 WIPO treaty.
Article 11: Obligations concerning Technological Measures
The existence of legal protection for "effective Technological Measures" does not necessarily imply any actually exist. Technological Measures MUST be effective for legal protection, otherwise, it would be impossible to know if you are circumventing them.
Regards,
James Phillips
Canada has Provinces, not states.
/me ducks
That'd make it a Police Province, eh?
Jim Prentice the Minister of Industry today released a Copyright Bill. Some commentary on the legislation is contained on Michael Geist's blog (a University of Ottawa law professor and Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law) here: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/
A grass roots campaign has been started to send letters to Members of Parliament to ensure this legislation doesn't move forward without substantive input from Canadians.
I'd really appreciate your support in filling out the following:
http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca/action/firstlook/
Thank you for your consideration!
This is going to end up just like the gun registry.
Another piece of 'The Book' to throw at those who piss off the police when they do something really wrong, but otherwise unenforced.
Hopefully it won't cost as much.
Of course, they won't have any proof that you remember it unless you say something about it first, so they'll not take any chances in that regard and mandate that every person who goes into a theatre must undergo a lobotomy immediately afterwards.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
I just sent the following to the CBC:
I'm a minor author, and the reason I'm a successful one is that my book was available for download. Anyone who liked it and wanted a printed copy ordered it from my publisher, who was the only person authorized to print it as a book, on thin enough paper to carry around without a knapsack.
This and other similar laws threaten my ability to make it available on-line, and therefor cut of my publisher and I off from this known successful approach.
Exactly the opposite of what a copyright law should do!
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
Bill C-61 will allow the Record industry (or copyright holder) to extortion money at will from the Canadian consumers. All the Record industry (or copyright holder) will need to do is claim that you illegally download (copied) some music (copy protected work) and ask for $500 or go to court with a lawyer and fight it out (costing more than $500). At which point the Record industry can drop the case and good luck recouping those legal fees from a industry with tons of lawyers and virtually unlimited budgets. It is bill to legalize extortion of the rich against the poor!
My Sig indicates the end of the comment I posted.
Section 41 talks about DRM and what not. But specifically excludes what we normally consider fair use as exceptions to the anti-drm laws.
So yeah, you can circumvent DRM if it's for the purpose of making your media compatible with your software.
I wouldn't vote for C-61, nor am I in favour of it, but it's not the worse peace of law I've ever seen.
copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones
Right. Unless that music has DRM. For those that don't already have it, future versions will. Compact discs will all be "protected" just like DVD's, just to make it illegal to copy them.
... or those with a predominance of English speakers seem to be the ones with, or have plans for, the most draconian DMCA-like laws. Wonder why that is.
I do realize that, since I'm not multi-lingual (unless you count two years of high school French and I don't) that there could be other countries whose copyright laws are even worse and I haven't read about them but I figure if there were such countries we all would have heard about them here on /. .
CUR ALLOC 20195.....5804M
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Here Is a redefinition of section 41.1 I am working on. It is loosly based on RCMP data destruction guidelines.
41. The following definitions apply in this section and in sections 41.1 to 41.2.
"circumvent" means to descramble a scrambled work, unless done with the authority of the copyright owner.
"technological measure" means any effective technology, device or component enumerated in section 41.1(1)b
"physical destruction" means to break up the medium into little pieces by either mechanical or chemical means. Any residue should be scrambled. This definition does not include reversable scrambling, such as that done by encryption systems.
41.1 (1) No person shall
(a) circumvent a technological measure.
(b) Known effective technical measures are enumerated as follows:
(i) In the case of printed work, physical destruction with each piece showing no more than 2 adjacent characters or lines. Incedental illustrations are exempt from the more rigorous destruction required by subsection (iv).
(ii) In the case of an audio fixation, physical destruction at the nyquist rate. By example, if the highest frequency in the fixation is 22kHz, the work must be scrambled into at least 44 thousand pieces per second.
(iii) In the case of video, physical destruction such than no more than 1/100th (one one hundredth) of each frame remains intact.
(iv) In the case of photographic works, no piece shall represent more than 1/1 000 000th (one millionth) of the work. Such a restriction is required since comercially available photographs are sometimes sold broken into 1000 pieces or more.
Subsection 41.1(1)c remains the same.
Subsections 41.1(2) through 41.1(4) remain the same.
Section 41 cannot be removed completely because of obligations under section 11 of the 1997 WIPO treaty.
Regards,
James Phillips
How would copyright holders be able to install their malware that is needed to protect them from you if you don't allow them to install the software by denying them admin rights on your computer? Not running as admin would circumvent DRM and thus would be illegal! (as would be any means of detecting and removing a computer virus that is trying to hide itself: that would certainly be trying to circumvent protective measures put there by the owner of the copyright on the virus's code!)