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.
Just to clarify for Americans who don't understand the parliamentary system, basically the Conservatives hold the most seats, but not the majority of seats, so they can loose motions. If it is considered a confidence motion, then the goverment is overthrown and we have another election. Usually minority governments are unstable and dissolve after a few months, but this one has been around (IMO) far too long.
Jeremy
Cynical Idealist
Not only can they loose motions, which they do with reckless abandon, but they can even lose them.
Cynical Idealist
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?
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/
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?
At least we still have the CBC
Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
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...
"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).
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
Also, write Jim Prentice, the proponent of bill C-61, at Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca
Done. I just sent a snail mail letter. Remember, if you are sending the letter to parliament, it is *FREE* and does not require a stamp. Every self-respecting Canadian slashdotter who reads this should do the same.
Try to hack my 31337 firewall!
"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."
Yes. But people shouldn't get complacent. One bill along these lines (Bill C-60 by the previous Liberal government) already expired on the order table when the government changed. That can't be counted on forever.
This is the chance to try to get the message across that Canadians don't want to be a bunch of pirates, they simply want to be able to use the materials they have bought and paid for, and they want "fear dealing" rights truly preserved, not this sham where you have the "right", but no ability to exercise it legally.
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
:x
The Liberals were in power under Jean Chretien from 1993 to 2003, when Paul Martin replaced him. Two things happened around this time. First, Chretien passed a campaign-finance reform bill that banned contributions from corporations and unions. Second, a major scandal broke that was dubbed the sponsorship scandal, as it was revealed Liberal-friendly advertising agencies in the province of Quebec had been awarded numerous government advertising contracts for doing effectively no work, and passing sums of money back to the Liberals as donations. One such case was, literally, an envelope full of cash passed to a Liberal party member in an Italian restaurant.
The Liberals had relied heavily on corporate donors during their time in power and did not have much in place for "grassroots" fundraising, so the campaign finance reform crippled their fundraising abilities. This remains true today; the Liberals are consistently out-fundraised by a huge margin by the Conservatives, who have very solid grassroots fundraising. I think in the last quarter, even the NDP raised more cash than the Liberals. The Liberals have still not managed to fully pay off their debts from their 2006 leadership convention. Bottom line: the Conservatives are flush with cash, the Liberals are broke. The Liberals simply can't afford an election.
The fallout from the sponsorship scandal crushed Liberal fortunes in Quebec and allowed the Conservatives to make significant inroads in the 2006 election. Selecting Dion as leader, who is not popular in nationalist parts of Quebec from his time as constitutional affairs minister under Chretien, has compounded the Liberal problem. Outside of Montreal, the Liberals are polling very badly in Quebec, behind both the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois, with the NDP nipping at their heels. Even in Montreal, recent polls are suggesting once-Liberal strongholds may be up for grabs. The Liberals have historically been weak in western Canada, and need to win large numbers of seats in both Quebec and Ontario to form government. As of today, the Liberals simply can't win in Quebec.
The final problem the Liberals have is they have transitioned very poorly from government to opposition. Often dubbed Canada's "natural governing party", the Liberals seem to have forgotten how to formulate policy when they are not governing. Much of their performance in opposition has been taken up with blustering about alleged Conservative scandals, rather than articulating an alternate vision of how to run the country.
So in a nutshell, our official opposition is a party that can't afford to trigger an election it can't win on policies it doesn't have. And the Liberals know it. Hence they huff and puff about opposing the Conservatives, but won't pull the trigger.
No, I don't believe that is the case. section 41 contains the following definition:
"technological measure" means any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation,
(a) controls access to a work, to a perform- ers performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording and whose use is authorized by the copyright owner; or
(b) restricts the doing with respect to a work, to a perform- ers performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording of any act referred to in section 3, 15 or 18 and any act for which remuneration is payable under section 19.
Note the phrase: "...any effective technology, device or component that..."
INAL, but I am a linux user. If the technology relies on a specific OS to be effective, it is not effective. Last time I checked, the "normal mode of operation" for an audio CD was a dumb CD player equiped with little more than a Digital to Analog Converter.
I am looking for flaws in the bill from the point of view that section 41 is irrelevant. (I am more worried about the legal protection offered to click-wraped user agreements)
Regards,
James Phillips
I think this might be a good way to find your MP if you have no idea who it is.
God save our Queen, and Heaven bless The Maple Leaf Forever!
I may not agree with your politics, but I admire your ethics.
Rather than abstaining, you might want to consider "parking" your vote with the Greens. The North American species is a lot less socialist than the European one. And depending on the riding, you might throw a good screwing into any one of the major parties. If you look at the last three by-elections, the Greens took votes primarily from a different party two of the three ridings, and picked up a little from each in the third. (I don't have the numbers in front of me, but I think I'm remembering properly.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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
Apparently, no. The Liberals promised to impose some sort of copyright bill about 12 years ago, and had been procrastinating. They might call for heavy changes, but they'd lose face for big companies if they spoke against it.
I tried to find a reference to prove this, but all I've got is my buddy on Parliament Hill as a a source.
What's the value of information that you don't know?
And sending snail-mail to your MP's office is also free! If we all rally and send tons of paper, they might get a clue!