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.
Cynical Idealist
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?
If only it was that simple. The opposition is in disarray, which is why a minority Conservative government dares to pull crap like this. Their main opposition, the Liberal Party, doesn't have the money or leadership to fight an election, so they'll pretty much agree to anything in order to dodge one. The other two major parties, the Bloc and NDP, don't have enough seats to do anything about it. The Conservatives will find a way to make the vote a matter of confidence, the Liberals will fold, and that will be that. It has nothing to do with what the majority of Canadians want.
I've calculated my velocity with such exquisite precision that I have no idea where I am.
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."
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.
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.
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...
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.
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
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?
Also, write Jim Prentice, the proponent of bill C-61, at Prentice.J@parl.gc.ca
Canada's governmental system has one advantage over the US: we don't radicalize quickly. Because a government falls if defeated on a major bill, the laws that get tabled generally are much tamer than their American counterparts. This law, sadly, is the exception to the rule.
Canada is pretty great. I'm currently working in Seattle, but grew up in Vancouver, and despite the similar climate, the culture is worlds apart. People in Canada are just... *nicer*, I have to say. They're more polite, they actually say thank you sometimes... I can't count the number of times the employee across the counter here in Seattle seemed surprised when I thanked them. What's wrong with you people? Seriously, I can't count the number of times people at Starbucks just grab their brew and go, without so much as acknowledging the guy who just made it for you.
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?
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
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.
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.
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