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
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.
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
twitter and Odder are the same person. An earlier thread with examples of how he uses sockpuppets and name trolls can be found here.
My reply to him:
Great, that's better, but get back to us once the anti-circumvention measures are taken out.
This one clause means that it will be sufficient for a copyright holder to simply add any type of copy protection to a work, even an ineffective easily circumvented one, to basically invalidate all the other consumer rights you have enumerated.
The industry is already moving away from DRM, why enshrine a reference to it in new legislation?
kthxbai
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada The constitutional provision that guarantees Freedom of expression in Canada is section 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)
This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.[citation needed]
In the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Zundel (1992), the court struck down a provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that prohibited publication of false information or news, stating that it violated section 2(b) of the Charter.
In April 29, 2004, Bill C-250 was passed which includes as hate speech propaganda against people based on their sexual orientation. It is now illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation. However, under section 319 on hate speech, a person cannot be convicted of hate speech "if the person can establish that the statements made are true."
Other laws that protect freedom of speech in Canada, and did so, to a limited extent, before the Charter was enacted in 1982, include the Implied Bill of Rights and the Canadian Bill of Rights. And more...
Charter Of Rights And Freedoms
Bill C-250
Finland, the country with miss finland decicing about school and copy protection stuff (dunno how they are relevant), already has exactly like this. You are not allowed to circumvent copy protection for any use, and you are not even allowed to discuss the methods or spread software that can do it.
That women who has been pushing it (Tanja Karpela) is quite a big joke here, and she just blogs about stuff like how our capitol city should get more "for elite only" clothing stores. We're in good hands.
Before you march on the hill, make sure you tell your parents and other boomer friends that this bill will make it so the cable companies can stop them from recording American Idol.
Wait for the look of utter horror to crystallize on their faces, and then you can recruit them into the cause.
It's amazing how fast they go from "meh, it's not really something I'm interested in" to "holy hell, not my Simon!"
The world's only surviving livewriter.
Actually it was the US government who wrote this legislation and told our government that they will sign it into law or your sleazy country will screw us over on trade worse than they already do.
They are already taking the guns away from legal gun owners in record numbers up here.
Welcome to the police state.
In true Canadian fashon we will whine and bitch for a bit and then grab our ankles.
I'd like to see Canada shut down all oil exports to the US until softwood lumber, beef exports and your unwelcome interference in our political system is fixed to our satisfaction. But of course since politicians work for corporations and not voters it will never happen.
IP rights are supposed to compensate the creative people who contribute to society not corporate profiteers like they do now.
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?
oh my god, cry me a river.
If you stopped exporting oil to us, the only thing that'd happen is we might finally wise up and start drilling in Alaska, and then you'd be shit out of luck getting anything from our country for being such whiny little babies.
Business is business. Grow up and stop throwing such a tantrum.
... 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'd add in phoning your MP at his parliamentary office while parliament is still in session, and constituency office otherwise. As I did today. They take phone calls seriously too, especially if they're long distance.
Christopher S. 'coldacid' Charabaruk -- coldacid.net
You appear to be vastly overestimating how quickly you can get oil out of Alaska and vastly underestimating how long it would take you can start doing so.
FYI, Alaska would supply roughly 2% of your usage, and it would take 3 years to start getting that if you started on it right now.
FYI, Canada currently supplies roughly 12.5% of your oil.
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
I am not Canadian, and my first impression is that you guys already pay a CD tax to pay for copying discs, making file sharing legal, how does the new bill affect that? If it prevents you (legally) from making those copies, should the media companies lose that CD tax?
24 beers in a case, 24 hours in a day. Coincidence? I think not!
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.