Canadian DMCA Proposal About To Die

An anonymous reader writes "Like the previous Bill C-60 before it, the proposed Bill C-61 that would bring DMCA-like laws to Canada is poised to die on the order table, never to receive a vote, as the current minority government falls. An election call is expected in days. Everybody expects that some form of these laws will be back yet again (third time's a charm?). There are too many interests pushing for change to let it go. But here's a chance for Canadians to influence politicians about it in an election campaign, and hopefully strike a better balance. And for those of you in the rest of the world who are laboring under a DMCA-like copyright law, let's hear your stories about why such laws are a good or bad idea, and if bad, how you would amend the law to make it tolerable. With the polls probably on Oct. 14th, Canadians will be looking for a few good ideas."

Comments

Legends

[magus_melchior]

Okay, did anyone else read the title and think "Gauntlet"?

"Canadian DMCA... needs food!"
"Canadian DMCA... needs food, badly!"
"Canadian DMCA... your life force is running out!"

Re:Legends

[c6gunner]

For some reason that reminds me of this comic.

And the author's Canadian! Perfect!

Re:Legends

[richlv]

actually, i read it at first as "Canadian DMCA Proposal Author About To Die".

disturbing.

Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[LM741N]

For making my record industry stocks plummet. Now I will end up having to live in low income housing, and download my music for free.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Its funny, but theres more people living in the state of California than there is in Canada. The Idea that Canadian file sharing could possibly be doing that much harm to the record industry is laughable.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[Vectronic]

Not that im for laws against file sharing, but if Canada had no restrictions on file sharing, then I'd imagine there would be a lot of Canadian rippers, and the USians could download from them, which would contrast with the US laws, and then either force Canada back into laws against it, or restrict the transfers between Canada and the US, since corporately many reside in/on both countries, unlike most central European, south American, or African places, etc.

Alternatively though, it may just force the corporations out of Canada (no distribution, or artist farming) which could easily be argued would be a good thing.

The same goes for a single state within the US, it poses a threat that the industry can't let pass, what if it becomes a trend? OMGz! And I think thats mostly what they are scared of, regardless of population, any leeway is "bad" (according to them).

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian, and I just woke up... so if this sounds like nonsense, it just might be.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Orignal AC here;

Thing is we do have laws that cover file sharing, Our existing copyright laws already make distribution illegal (assuming your not authorized to of course). The problem US corporations have is that the Canadian system is substantially different from the US one in several ways.

The most prominent of these would be our Blank Media Levy, A portion of every sale on blank media like CD-R's is payed to the CRIA (our local version of the RIAA) This levy is widely held to cover any possible losses that companies might suffer from copying. This means as Canadians our fair use rights are a bit more ironclad, we are quite literally paying for them. Because of this blank media levy it's actually not even certain if pirating music is illegal or not, as we have in effect already paid for it (This has NOT been decided in court yet one way or another)

The next important difference is that we don't have a a DMCA like peice of legislation, meaning cracking DRM in Canada is also still in Legal Limbo, with no law saying its illegal to unlock your software the courts would tend to fall back on existing laws, and the logic of "You bought it its yours to do with as you please provided your not in violation of any laws" is pretty easy to follow. The aforementioned Blank Media Levy also makes format/time shifting a no brainier too, why pay a surcharge to a music industry on a product if you can't copy your music to it? So in Canada DRM is even more pointless as theres no law protecting it, which means companies can't try to lock you in to a certain product/vendor through tie ins and judicious use of DRM. And groups like the RIAA are pretty stupid about DRM they still think its going to be their saviour, and thanks to the DMCA in the US its almost working.

Finally, and in a more general way, Canadian consumer protection laws are more strict (that is to say in favor of the customer) than in the USA, may corporate practises that work in the USA don't work here. Most notably EULA's are not enforceable under Canadian law.

These factors are the death knell for the tactics that the BSA and RIAA and their ilk have been using in the states, and as the people trying desperately to hold onto an outdated business model thats bad (for them). A DMCA ish piece of legislation is nothing more than an industry trying to legislate it self a larger profit margin and we as Canadians neither need nor want it.

Again in case I wasen't clear Canada has copyright laws, and they cover fileshareing. What we don't have are the broken lobbyist bought laws that the USA suffers under, and we sure as fuck don't want em. And as a taxpaying citizen I think my government has spent enough of its time and my money on the issue. The recording industry continues to post record breaking multi-billion dollar profits, clearly they are not going under, time to focus our time and energy on more pressing concerns like oh say insuring we have enough energy to power the country in 5 years (we're a power hungry country, we need more damn power plants) or what we're going to do about a primary energy source other than oil. And of immediate concern is that the collapsing US dollar is basically killing our manufacturing industry, and were not just talking a few layoffs here, entire plants are closing down. American companies just can't afford to buy as much of our crap anymore between the sky high price of gas and a dollar at near parity.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[monxrtr]

if Canada had no restrictions on file sharing, then I'd imagine there would be a lot of Canadian rippers, and the USians could download from them

Uhh, no, I mean, Yes. Infantry. Cavalry. General and Officers. Let Canada absorb the influx of illegal USA-ian laws school graduates.

Hehe. "A 'Threat'". Maybe in a land and a time far far ago. We can download anything and everything whenever we wish, to check to make sure that none of our own IPs are being violated as per established by the representatives of the RIAA methodology. Don't forget to /salute the Uploading Special Forces, Pirate Bastards! :P

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[monxrtr]

Hi Original AC. Come videotape me Live downloading anything and everything, itching for free sacrificial RIAA money. These bastard are at the ready to rip off every word I might utter. Of course I'm marked and can't upload anything for the moment. I Won precisely because of absurd copyright laws. Pass some more! Give me more free money from the music industry coffers! Every single upload and every single download by any and all bloody RIAA pirate representatives has been and forever will be recorded to perfection.

"Some of you are thinking that you won't fight. Some of you that you can't. They all say that."

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[LM741N]

Actually I care more about those great BC seeds and "stuff" that comes over the border (here in OR). After a bit of that, I don't need to download anything- the music comes right out of my head.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[MobyDisk]

There is one good part of the DMCA: The Safe Harbor stuff that makes ISPs not liable for content their users upload. Now, it just plain seems obvious to me that ISPs aren't responsible for policing their users, so I'm not sure if a law stating that is really necessary. But what is obvious and common sense isn't always what the law interprets. So it might be a good thing to have.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[calmofthestorm]

Yarr! *waves pirate hook*

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[calmofthestorm]

Doesn't the US have a blank media levy too in the form of music CD-Rs? Of course, you can just buy the cheaper, physically-identical "data cd-r"

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Dear Canadian AC,

The special interests also shoved through a "Blank Media Levy" here. After the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that you can't use copyright law to ban a device (like the VCR) that has a significant legitimate use, there were reportedly threats to sue anyone who imported a DAT recorder, to the tune of $1 billion or more.

This led to copy protection (SCMS), AND recorder tax, AND blank media tax, on all standalone consumer digital audio recording devices. Computer accessories were explicitly exempted from this nonsense, and the new law was billed as preventing anti-technology lawsuits, but that didn't stop the RIAA from unsuccessfully using the new law to try to kill a computer-dependent MP3 player (RIAA vs. Diamond Multimedia). Following the RIAA's court loss, "voluntary" DRM (SDMI, Windows Media DRM, iTunes/iPod DRM) appeared.

What we need here in the States is a repeal of

        * the copy protection and tax provisions of the AHRA
        * the mandatory MacroVision provision of the DMCA
        * the anti-circumvention clause of the DMCA
        * any law or regulation requiring devices to honor other copy protection or DRM (e.g., broadcast flag)

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[Jorophose]

I think the most important thing is, though, the CRIA likes the levy, and was not interested in the Canadian DMCA.

That says a lot. I don't really give a shit about what movie companies say. There are none in Canada, and if there are, they're either incredibly shitty, owned by americans, or tiny shops that wouldn't mind more exposure.

What were they thinking with the DMCA? I mean, what we need is a murdering of corporations like Rogers and Bell, not encourage them. If Verizon came to Canada we'd pay their offices, pay their wages, and help them lay down fibre. Anything is better than the fail rogers/bell/ are, shaw/telus are in the west, videotron is in Quebec, and a government-run internet is a horrible idea.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, ....

[ratboy666]

Actually, it has been decided in court. http://www.cippic.ca/file-sharing-lawsuits/

The ruling was that merely downloading and making available are not enough to infringe copyright. This is probably limited to music; the personal copy provision is explicit in that only music is covered (not even audio books).

The decision was appealed, and stood.

Making available on a folder on the hard disk was important. The personal copy provision allows for downloading. But the Copyright Act has a "no telecommunication" provision. That part of the ruling was put aside (too bad), and is still open.

But merely downloading is not enough to infringe copyright in Canada.

Viva minority governments

[francisstp]

Had the Conservatives been governing under a majority government, this bill would have passed long ago (plus we'd be even more involved militarily). Let's hope the situation stays identical for a long time.

Re:Viva minority governments

[fyoder]

Let's hope the situation stays identical for a long time.

No, lets hope the NDP form a majority government.

Ah ha ha ha, kidding, I know that some things just aren't possible, esp. when people who might have voted NDP vote Liberal because they're justifiably frightened of Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.

Re:Viva minority governments

[sayfawa]

I know that some things just aren't possible, esp. when people who might have voted NDP vote Liberal because they're justifiably frightened of Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.

I've taken a hard stance that I like to talk about: I have sworn to myself that I won't fall for fearmongering any more. I now vote only for the party that I actually want to be in power, consequences be damned. I've convinced myself that our form of democracy just doesn't work if you don't vote for who you actually support. And I've been ranting to anyone who will listen: The Liberals aren't *that* much different from the Conservatives. So if, by some amazing chance, my (or your) vote for the NDP or Greens (or the Bloc if you're into that kind of thing :) ) could have been the deciding vote between the Libs and Cons, the situation is still largely the same. Especially if it's a minority.

But, it's hard convincing people. Even people who like the NDP. Even after I let them know that each vote means more funding for that party, so it isn't just a "wasted vote". Even after convincing them that the Libs wouldn't even have this "green shift" platform if it wasn't for the recent upswing in the Greens' numbers. Even after I show them Tommy Douglass' Mousland speech. Sigh.

Re:Viva minority governments

[Bieeanda]

I've taken a hard stance that I like to talk about: I have sworn to myself that I won't fall for fearmongering any more. I now vote only for the party that I actually want to be in power, consequences be damned. I've convinced myself that our form of democracy just doesn't work if you don't vote for who you actually support.

Precisely. That's why we have the concepts of majority, minority and coalition governments. I prefer minority governments for exactly the outcome we have here-- Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition actually has the chance to keep shit like this from steamrolling through, when the ruling party doesn't have enough seats to overwhelm the opposing vote.

Re:Viva minority governments

[rbergstrom]

frightened of Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.

But the "Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party" had such an appropriate acronym.

Re:Viva minority governments

[innocent_white_lamb]

I like to think that I'm a reasonably well-informed and educated person. I take an interest, greater or lesser, in a great many things, including politics and the world around us.

I have, in several elections, gone to the polling station, taken my ballot to the little booth and after unfolding it, I re-fold it and return it to the clerk for her to put into the ballot box. I vote, but I make no mark on the ballot at all if, in my opinion, no candidate is worthy of receiving my vote.

And I am Canadian.

Re:Viva minority governments

[cp.tar]

On the same note, I would really love to see a system where empty ballots are counted as such — and where a number of empty ballots could get an empty seat in the parliament.
It is unlikely the empty ballots would ever reach a majority, but even a few empty seats would show most vividly that some people are not at all represented, and remind the politicians that not everyone supports them. You need a majority for something? Well, the empty seats are against it; deal with it.

It might not change much, but at least the current abstainees would now have a reason to vote, even if it is for no-one.

Re:Viva minority governments

[eikonos]

I like you're idea of voting for the party you actually support. I actually did last time around, but I'm worried about the Conservatives getting back in, so I'm not sure this time. If you're in BC, vote for STV next year: http://stvforbc.com/

Re:Viva minority governments

[msim]

Just remember. No matter who you vote for, a politician still gets in.

Re:Viva minority governments

[Curtman]

I now vote only for the party that I actually want to be in power, consequences be damned.

That might work if the politicians were limited in the scope of bills they could introduce by what they promised to do during the election. Did I have any idea that Steven Harper would run all over the world shouting about how great and wonderful Israel is, and how we'll support them no matter what crimes they commit? I don't even remember it being an election issue. I don't remember people asking him to bring us a DMCA either. Did he mention that he would throw billions of dollars away that were stolen from us in the softwood lumber dispute?

They lie. We can expect these guys to behave the way they always have. Whatever they say during the election isn't the problem. It's what they don't say, but intend to do if they get a majority that frightens me.

Re:Viva minority governments

[cp.tar]

First of all, I am not a Canadian. Nor am I an American.
In fact, I am not even a native English speaker.

Furthermore, a declined or an invalid ballot is subsequently ignored. If 10% of the population cast such ballots, they will not get 10% of empty seats to represent them. So please do not flame me.

Re:Viva minority governments

[roman_mir]

Giving more funding to NDP? That's just criminal.

I agree with you on one thing though, always vote for the party that you really support. Libertarian.

Re:Viva minority governments

[zippthorne]

What the heck are you talking about? 400 years ago, everyone knew the earth was round. Ocean commerce would've been impossible without this knowledge. There wasn't even that much debate as to the radius of the mostly spherical earth, except for one Italian visitor to a newly emancipated Spain just looking for something to spend monies that had previously gone to the war effort on. (presumably in lieu of lowering taxation...)

GP was talking about a voting strategy based on the idea that a government that "gets things done" is the worst government of all. And after the government "shutdown" here in the states, I quite agree. The ideal state for any legislative body is constant bickering (partisan or otherwise) and blocking each others' legislative goals.

If something is truly important, there will be enough public clamor for even a strongly divided congress to take heed. For everything else, it's better that they are stymied at every opportunity, rather than ratchet up the taxes, regulation, and complexity of laws (which does benefit lawyers...).

As an American, although I like the idea of multiple weak parties never quite accomplishing much, I have to deal with the reality that "two party" is a local "optimum" for our voting style and go for the next best thing: no veto-proof majorities, ever, and a president of the opposite party to congress as much as possible.

Re:Viva minority governments

[TrekkieGod]

Furthermore, a declined or an invalid ballot is subsequently ignored. If 10% of the population cast such ballots, they will not get 10% of empty seats to represent them. So please do not flame me.

The problem with your plan is that it assumes two things that just aren't true:

1. Politicians would somehow be 'shamed' when they are reminded that not everyone supports them. Their actual response will be more along the lines of, "sweet! That district usually opposes me on issues A and B, and now that they chose to be unrepresented, I shall propose bills that deal with A and B. Basically, there's one thing that is worse than being represented by a crappy politician, and that is having no representation at all.
2. There are enough people who would cast empty ballots for that even to matter. In the United States, people don't even vote for the third-party candidate that matches their views because "(s)he can't win". Well, they can't win because you morons won't vote for them!

Here are the solutions that actually have a chance. If you find someone on the ballot that matches your views, vote for him even if he has "no chance of winning." At least his votes will be counted, and if he does get enough votes, he will get the office (which does exactly what you want).

If there's nobody on the ballot that you can stomach, run for office yourself, or work to help somebody else get on the ballot.

Re:Viva minority governments

[Strake]

Canadians are so used to looking down their noses at "ignorant" Americans, but at least every American I've met has some idea of how their system of government works, unlike you snot-nosed clowns who clearly don't know a goddam thing.

Strange, then, that the latest Canadian election induced 64.7 percent of our apathetic, snot-nosed electorate to come to the polls, while the latest American election managed to induce only 55.3 percent of the American electorate to do the same.

Sources: Federal Elections Commission (USA) and Elections Canada.

Re:Viva minority governments

[gobbo]

esp. when people who might have voted NDP vote Liberal because they're justifiably frightened of Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.

That's actually the Conservative Reform Alliance Party, or C.R.A.P. -- at least it was called that publicly for a whole day, until they caught on. No crap!

Re:Viva minority governments

[Strake]

...people who might have voted NDP vote Liberal because they're justifiably frightened of Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.

...because their vote is moot if their candidate of choice is not elected, so they are effectively forced to vote for one of the two biggest and (presumably) most popular parties.

If Canada's electoral system were based on proportional representation, then the distribution of seats in the House would actually represent (hence "representation") the views of the electorate.

Re:Viva minority governments

[innocent_white_lamb]

You can DECLINE your ballot
 
So much for a secret ballot, eh?
 
How is it the business of the poll clerk or the guy behind me if I decide to "decline" my ballot by not marking it?
 
No thanks, I'll stick with doing it the other way.

Re:Viva minority governments

[innocent_white_lamb]

If there's nobody on the ballot that you can stomach, run for office yourself, or work to help somebody else get on the ballot.
 
First, I have no interest in running for office. I follow politics to some degree, but it's not a passionate interest and I have other things that I do that are of more importance. To me.
 
Second, if someone wishes to run for office, it is up to him to convince me that he is worthy. It's not my job to bang his or anyone else's drum.

Re:Viva minority governments

[innocent_white_lamb]

Why does finding the available candidates "not worthy" have to mean that I'm against everything?
 
That's a large and unfounded assumption.

Re:Viva minority governments

[cp.tar]

It is not that I count on politicians being shamed. That would be dumb, since they cannot be shamed even when they are caught red-handed.
What I'm suggesting is the system where people choose to be unrepresented rather than misrepresented, and where their empty seat always inevitably votes "nay", no matter what the proposal. That's institutionalized opposition to everyone and anyone in power. Should it occur that people start using their votes in that manner, casting a null vote would actually mean something: active obstructionism.

For instance, due to some heavy gerrymandering, the last Croatian elections were won by the party which got less total votes than the runner-up, but also got more seats in the parliament. All in all, this party represents about 25% of the population, 30% tops. Yet they are in power and act as if they had been elected by the vast majority. And people do abstain, nowadays, for they see that they cannot do a thing.

And yes, voting for anyone is better than voting for no-one. Especially since this kind of system is not and will probably never be introduced anywhere.
It would be nice to see, though, how many people would rather choose to be unrepresented if something like this existed.

Re:Viva minority governments

[TrekkieGod]

First, I have no interest in running for office. I follow politics to some degree, but it's not a passionate interest and I have other things that I do that are of more importance. To me.

Well, I meant to say that if there' snobody on the ballot you can stomach and you feel like you must make some sort of difference anyway then you should run for office.

I don't have anything against people not voting at all and staying home. In fact, I think it's desirable for people who didn't fully research the issues and the candidates to not vote (and I'm not saying that applies to you, since you said you follow politics. You still have the right to not vote for any reason).

Second, if someone wishes to run for office, it is up to him to convince me that he is worthy. It's not my job to bang his or anyone else's drum.

True enough, but then you lose all rights to complain. There are things you can do, and if you choose not to do them, you chose not to do them, it's not a problem with the system itself.

I'm not running for office either, I don't have any intention of running for office. I don't vote for the vast majority of elections because I feel like I haven't fully researched the issues. When I do vote, I know who I'm voting for, what they stand for, and I'm not afraid of voting third-party. I was just telling the other poster what he could do that would actually work if he wants to do something to make a difference.

Re:Viva minority governments

[TrekkieGod]

What I'm suggesting is the system where people choose to be unrepresented rather than misrepresented, and where their empty seat always inevitably votes "nay", no matter what the proposal.

Actually, with that last bit in place, I find that I actually like your idea. I originally interpreted your empty seats to be "abstained" votes, which is what happens now in the US when the congresspeople just aren't there to vote. If not voting means an automatic "nay", that would work well.

I still don't think enough people would bother to vote with empty ballots that any seat would actually be empty, but like you said, that's an ideal world solution anyway.

Re:Viva minority governments

[innocent_white_lamb]

True enough, but then you lose all rights to complain.
 
How so?
 
If J.P. Schook is elected to be my representative, then it's his job to represent me, regardless of whether I voted for him, against him, or not at all.

Re:Viva minority governments

[TrekkieGod]

If J.P. Schook is elected to be my representative, then it's his job to represent me, regardless of whether I voted for him, against him, or not at all.

Because voting is how you tell the candidate what your views are. He tells you what he's going to do while campaigning. If those views match what the majority of people in the community have, then he wins. Otherwise, the guy with the opposing views wins. If you don't vote, you're not telling anyone what your views are (most importantly, your representative doesn't know if it's the view most of the people he is representing have. You can call him, and he knows what you think, but you could be the one dissenting voice).

After all, it's not about representing you. It's about representing your community. If you're the one dissenting voice among the people around you on a particular issue, you're not somehow more important than the rest.

Now, if you don't vote, but you organize a sufficient number of people and lobby for something, he'll also listen to you. Not because he'll think it's their duty to represent you (politicians don't, even though it is), but because he'll be afraid of how you and your people are going to vote in the next election. The effect is the same though: you're telling your representative what your views are.

Re:Viva minority governments

[kwandar]

"Had the Conservatives been governing under a majority government, this bill would have passed long ago (plus we'd be even more involved militarily). Let's hope the situation stays identical for a long time."

I agree, but hoping is just wishful thinking - right? :)

Why not make it happen. Contribute $100 to your favourite non-conservative party (it only costs you $25 as there is a $75 tax credit) and write to them to tell them why you are doing it. Dion for instance has agreed to hold public consultation.

Re:Viva minority governments

[francisstp]

So if, by some amazing chance, my (or your) vote for the NDP or Greens (or the Bloc if you're into that kind of thing :) ) could have been the deciding vote between the Libs and Cons [...]

The probability of this happening is somewhere in the range of 2 X 10-13946.

Voting is that much irrational.

Re:Viva minority governments

[robotbebop]

You _support_ minority governments? Explain to me how 2 years of ineffective government is a good thing. All the Conservatives have done is import US policy while the Liberals have spent every waking moment trying to force an election. How is that democracy?

Re:Viva minority governments

[francisstp]

So we agree that the distribution of seats should remain the same then, with tories in a minority.

Re:Viva minority governments

[Repton]

Reminds me of the joke about the political candidate who changes his name to "Theabove Zz'noneof"..

Re:Viva minority governments

[Abcd1234]

Explain to me how 2 years of ineffective government is a good thing.

It's a great thing! Anything that passes must, by definition, involve compromise, which means it'll be more representative of everyone's interests (the way it stands, at least one other party must agree to a piece of legislation in order for it to pass). Meanwhile, a hamstrung government is one that can't fuck things up as badly. Case in point, twice this DMCA-like copyright legislation has hit the house, and twice now nothing has happened with it.

Meanwhile, your view of things seems to largely contradict everything I've read. Last I heard, recently it's been the conservatives that have been gunning for an election, while the Liberals have been trying to delay because they realize they're in a weak position, politically.

Wha Wha What?

[NetNed]

Good ideas? We're talking about DMCA right? Isn't DMCA and good idea like a oxymoron?

If you like having media corporations run free over any ounce of rights you have with laws that encourage them doing so, then there is your good idea!

Re:Wha Wha What?

[NetNed]

Oh yea, 18 dollar music CD's that where 5 dollars two years ago, but that's more the RIAA. Still the RIAA is one of the forces that tries hardest to subvert and twist DMCA law to their own liking, which is reason enough not to like either!

As a previously loyal conservative voter

[ameline]

As a previously loyal conservative voter, I cannot vote for the conservatives this time largely due to C61. I have been thrust, unwillingly, into the arms of the NDP as they are the only one of the three major parties in Canada with a rational position on the subject. This bill proposes to make a criminal of me and virtually everyone I know.

I will be donating money and volunteering my time to ensure that the conservatives do not attain a majority.

That and Harper and Prentice are both industrial strength douchebags. Both of them can go straight to hell as far as I am concerned.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[sayfawa]

FYI: The Greens aren't just about the Environment

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[tonywong]

I'd moderate you up, but I have more to say.

Just remember that this is the Conservative Party is the one that is modeled after the Republican Party in the United States. Not all of the the philosophies, but in operation. The have been in constant election mode and that means that they put their partisanship before any real governance.

This includes things like Bill C-61. If you are a Canadian and you are reading this site you should know what and how Bill C-61 is and how it can affect you. It is dead simply because of a quirk in politics, not because it died in any readings. The Conservatives can and will reintroduce a third bill like C-61 simply because they can. They are in line with 'big business' and lobbyists at the expense of your average Canadian. If you allow the Conservatives to gain a majority then they will ram a successor to C-61 down you throats and you have NO ONE but yourselves to blame in allowing this to happen.

Just remember that this is the governing party that has allowed an innocent man (Maher Arar) to be renditioned and tortured in Syria via the United States on poor and mistaken evidence that he was a terrorist, and then tried to cover it up by denying any fault. What makes you think that a government that would allow this would give any consideration to average Canadians about criminalizing downloads?

You have a little more than 30 days to get the word out that the Conservative Party is not out for any citizen's interests but is totally willing to follow the will of corporate interests, the largest of which are headquartered in the United States. Funny how Bill C-61 looked like the DMCA...

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[Anonymous Coward]

No, they're also about market self-regulation, and let's not forget that the NDP's environmental stance is actually 'greener' than the Green party's. Also, don't confuse Canada's Green Party with more successful parties by the same name in europe

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[Wowsers]

As a previously loyal conservative voter, I cannot vote for the conservatives this time largely due to C61.

I see your problem. If they made it C90 then maybe that would seem better voter value than a C61, I mean, you can get 45 minutes per side from a C90!

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[monxrtr]

Yes, thank you libertarian philosophy, thank you free market austrian economic analysis methodology. This isn't, never has been, and won't ever be, about "left" versus "right". This is an extremist left-right strange bedfellows unholy alliance timeout, to make the world a better place, by abolishing IP as a warmup to the task of eliminating government banker bunker fiat currency; then we can go back to our usual petty grievances.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[Xelios]

The worst part about this is the bill can be voted down over and over, and they'll just reintroduce it, over and over. It only has to pass once, and that's the depressing part.

But at least for now, Mr. Stephen Harper; we're setting you adrift, idiot.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[Brickwall]

Right. Canadian election finance laws do not allow for contributions from big business any longer, which is one reason the Liberals - who were the party of big business, just look at contributions before Chretien changed the law - are broke. The Tories raise all their money - lots of it - from individual Canadians, with the average contribution being, IIRC, $75. But you keep believing that the Tories are mean and in the pockets of business, and keep forgetting that the Liberals stole your tax dollars to pay their campaign expenses and still haven't paid it back.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[ameline]

I'm not sure if you're a troll, or just uninformed, so here goes;

I format shift my dvds to my entertainment center computer -- I don't give copies out to anyone -- but this simple act of format shifting dvds is criminalized under this bill (as dvds have copy protection that must be circumvented in order to format shift them). If it passes I will be a criminal -- as will almost everyone I know. Hence my vehement opposition.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[m.ducharme]

I agree with most of what you said, but would add this: if anyone is interested in what's wrong with C61, check out Michael Geist's blog where he's running "61 Reforms to C61". It's scary as hell, C61 is MUCH worse than the DMCA.

And two, although Harper's government is complicit in the rendition of Maher Arar, Arar was actually rendered to Syria on Paul Martin's watch.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[rruvin]

Just remember that this is the governing party that has allowed an innocent man (Maher Arar) to be renditioned and tortured in Syria via the United States on poor and mistaken evidence that he was a terrorist

No, that happened in 2002, three and a half years before the Conservatives came to power. The party in power back then was the Liberals.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[roman_mir]

Wow, truth is moderated as a Flamebait? Let me restate the parent:

Fucking Liberals allowed Arar to be tortured in Syria.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[earthforce_1]

And I will be joining you my friend. As will many of the 91,000 facebook users. I wonder how many of them were former Tories like us?

If any candidate has the stones to show up at my door, I will let them know what issues matters for me.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[earthforce_1]

Actually, I like their technology policy - they plan to mandate FOSS and open formats wherever possible in government. (As well as being against C-61)

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[Pig Hogger]

Just remember that this is the governing party that has allowed an innocent man (Maher Arar) to be renditioned and tortured in Syria via the United States on poor and mistaken evidence that he was a terrorist, and then tried to cover it up by denying any fault

Er, no. It was the liberals who let Ahar to be deported to Syria. Granted, the tories will give even less a shit about that, but here the blame squarely lies with the liberals and, most importantly, the Royal Corrupt Maudit Police.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[Pig Hogger]

When everyone is a criminal, nobody is.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[gwait]

Have you actually Looked at bill C61?
The ONLY people it protects are the ones who work at the large media corporations.
Nothing in it to make sure all the cash they would rake in is presented to the actual artists who own the music.
Insane things about forcing libraries to make sure everyone destroys their photocopies of library reference material after 30 days, making it a little expensive for someone working on a PHD (2 year task) to keep their notes around while they study..
Bill C61 is NOT about protecting artists, it's about protecting big media companies from the US.
The largest independent record company in Canada was against it, and were not even consulted.

In the US the DMCA is used to squelch free speech,
stop competition, and again to support big media conglomerates, and does nothing to protect artists themselves.
Go look up how much of the lawsuit money the RIAA have handed back to artists. The RIAA are keeping it to fund the lawyers war chest.
Michael Geist has many good articles about the expected results of C61. Protecting artists from piracy might be the catchphrase, but it is not at all the goal of Bill C61.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter

[robotbebop]

If you want to support the NDP I hope you can contribute to something that can get them into the opposition. Otherwise they'll just be the Ralph Nader of Canada and get us into a third consecutive minority government as a large number of Canadians opt for "None of the above" and vote NDP. Do your country a favor and vote Liberal or Conservative, unless you can do something to get NDP to replace one of those two.

Make it tolerable?

[Gr8Apes]

Make it tolerable ... By rejecting it and rolling back copyrights to their original limited lifespan of 14 years after registration. (Although I don't mind the automatic copyright granted which should last for no more than one year pending registration, nor the application/grant of one extension for another 14 years)

Oh, and I would increase registration requirements and a provision to provide library copies with actual submissions in open source storage formats completely free of DRM.

IOW, the only tolerable DMCA is a dead DMCA.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[mellon]

Of course, the problem isn't people who want to live off their works for the rest of their lives. It's people who want those works to remain under copyright protection for half a century or more after the author has died. And it's all of the works that nobody is making any money on anymore, but that nevertheless are lost to the world because, since they are under copyright, and the owners of the copyright can't be located, the works can't be digitized.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Anonymous Coward]

>Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee?

Actually, as an Electrician, I create a lot of hard work. I was paid for it by the factory I worked at. I've left that line of work now. Do I feel the factory owes me anything at all?

No.

Why do artists feel they are owed money for a lifetime and a half (Canada's current laws give 50 years AFTER DEATH copyright terms) for any work they do? Whether it takes 5 minutes or 5 years? They're worse than today's university grads that feel toiling in a university for 3 years _entitles_ them to a $80k+ a year job FOR LIFE.

Fuck that self-entitlement shit right up the ass. If you don't like it, don't create any more art. I really don't care if there's no more art in the world if the only way it can be created is is if artists feel they deserve to be paid for it 50 years after they're dead and buried. Nobody deserves treatment like that, not even Jesus for God's sakes.

>I think that if an artist creates a brilliant work of art, and wants to live off the royalties of that work for the rest of their life, they should have that right.

I created plenty of brilliant works as an Electrician, and even if I was the only one who could do the job I did (hint: artists are JUST AS REPLACEABLE, trust me -- there might be only one van gogh and only one mozart, but the world didn't stop turning because they didn't get 100+ year copyrights) I *never* felt entitled to live off that job for the rest of my life, just watching profits roll in, not doing jack shit to continue to justify them.

I think we need to go back to the old system of Kings and Queens paying artists to create art for them so artists can be taken off that high pedestal they think they deserve. Put them in a real job for five minutes and they'll start crying. Well, they say crying is the first step to healing!

>How good is a 15 year old map anyway? It will have none of the modern roads or provincial bodies, thus even the companies creating them acknowledged no need to protect them after a certain point.

Actually, I've used plenty of 15 year old provincial maps (thanks province of Ontario, too bad they're no longer free!) and they are just fine. Very few roads disappear, except for the occasional local route.

>I'm sure lots of washed-up celebs still live off royalties from shows they did decades ago, even if they get a whopping 15 cents every time it airs. Who are you to tell that person that they don't deserve that money just cause you feel like downloading an episode off of YouTube?

You *have* to be shitting me, right? There's plenty of washed up, drunk, useless Electricians out there too. And if they don't get their arse up each and every morning they can't afford anything but moonshine. Do you shed a tear for them? Fucking elitist.

>Limit copyright to the lifetime of the individual creator, or to a reasonable period for companies.

Abolish copyright entirely. Stop letting artists be elitist pricks. It's about friggin' time.

>I'm sorry that you, and I, and most of us will work 9-5 till we die, that doesn't mean a (arguably) creative genious like JK Rowling should have to start worrying about Sorceror's Stone knockoffs anytime soon.

You have to be fucking kidding me. Because someone can operate a typewriter and put pablum on a page they deserve a lifetime of luxury?

>Just cause you're selfish and have no concept of the hard-work and effort people put into these products, and therefore don't understand the value of copyright law, doesn't mean copyright law is wrong.

*I'M SELFISH?* WTF?!?! I'm selfish because I expect perfectly capable people to work 40 hours a week? That I don't think someone who writes a book one time has the right to live off it for the rest of their life? That they society shouldn't tell them "enough is enough" and remind them, yes, you really do need to work for a livi

Re:Make it tolerable?

[AliasMarlowe]

You sir, have obviously never created anything of value. Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee?

And you, sir, have evidently never invented anything useful.

I have 12 granted US Patents [all involve apparatus, none are for software or business methods], and a couple of pending applications. Some of these patents are actively exploited in products on the market, and I receive modest remuneration as a result. Of course, you are free to exploit any patented invention for your own use, provided it is not used commercially - royalties are only needed for commercial use.

Not only do you have to pay "non-trivial" filing, inspection, and [perhaps] grant fees to the US PTO, you must pay increasing renewal fees every four years to maintain a granted patent. You must also submit a locally adapted translated application and pay (usually even higher) fees in every other jurisdiction where you want your invention to be protected.

At most after 20 years from the first filing, the patent expires. None of mine have expired yet, but it won't be too long before the first one does. In fact, all of my existing patents will have expired before I retire. They are not "money for your life and your descendents' lives", even if they are used commercially for decades.

Revert the DMCA. Limit copyright to the lifetime of the individual creator, or to a reasonable period for companies. Restrict copyright to actual works (Mickey Mouse is trademarked and protected, but Walt Disney is dead, and "Steamboat Willy" should be open domain). I'm sorry that you, and I, and most of us will work 9-5 till we die, that doesn't mean a (arguably) creative genious like JK Rowling should have to start worrying about Sorceror's Stone knockoffs anytime soon.

Now, which benefits society more in the long term - a useful invention (on which further inventions may be built) or a recording of Prince or Madonna squawking?

If it's not exploited, a patent is often allowed to lapse after only 8 or 12 years (non-payment of maintenance fees). It expires after at most 20 years, no matter what.

I see no reason why copyrights should automatically be worldwide (patents are national), or last much longer than a patent. Even the lifetime of the author is the wrong term for copyright (author might be creative at 90 years old, or die in an accident, etc.), and would be inapplicable to corporations. A fixed maximum term of 20 years would be reasonable.

If a longer copyright term (such as 50 years) were adopted, then there should be an early expiry mechanism for copyright. For example, if a work has been in copyright for more than 12 years, then if 4 years pass without the work or a direct derivative being distributed, then it would lapse into the public domain. Note that works under GPL would not be weakened by this requirement, since they are being frequently distributed.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[ppanon]

Eh don't hate artists because of him. Apart for some egotists like the guy from Metallica, artists generally want their art to be experienced and appreciated by as many people as possible and are happy to just make a healthy living at it (i.e put food on the table and a roof over their head). The GP is probably a shill for either the RIAA, MPAA, GOP, or CPoC (Conservative Party of Canada) trying to astroturf to support the party line.

Most artists are OK, It's the bottom feeders that rip everyone off by creating artificial scarcity that you need to be angry with.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[rohan972]

Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee? ... Just cause you're selfish and have no concept of the hard-work and effort people put into these products, and therefore don't understand the value of copyright law, doesn't mean copyright law is wrong.

We as a society, sir, never have rewarded people on the basis hard work and effort, nor is there ever any intention to do so. We reward people for supplying a saleable product or service for which there is a demand. The extent of the reward is determined by supply and demand.

Consider this example: a man moves a pile of rocks, then moves it back, every day for a year. No-one asked him to, he has no contract promising payment for moving the rocks. Do we reward him on the basis of his hard work? He has worked extremely hard! No, we don't reward him. If he had a lifelong dream to move rocks, he has fulfilled his dream, he's a success! If he did it in the expectation that someone should reward him, he's just a fool.

Nobody cares how hard the "individual creator" works, that's their problem. Introduce laws to reward hard work and you'll get a whole bunch of people doing "busy work" that's totally unproductive and undesirable and drains the economy. It'd be like having another government.

Here's the issue: copying is a natural right. It is the basis of all learning. We copy to learn to walk, we copy to learn to talk, we copy to learn to write, there is no endeavour you can embark on that does not depend on you first doing a massive amount of copying. Even our very life comes about from the copying of DNA, it is fundamental to our existence. Therefore, it is the obligation of the copyright proponents to justify their demand that people refrain from their natural right, not the obligation of the people to justify copying.

Well, here is the justification:
Without copyright (and with the existence of the internet) an unregulated free market operating solely on supply and demand does not facilitate the production of works as abundantly as we would like. The reason is that due to the infinitely copyable nature of the works, there are two extremes of supply only, (1) zero supply (or potential supply) for works not yet created and (2) unlimited supply for works that have been created. In the case of (1) the price for the production of one copy needed to provide incentive for the creator is too high for most potential buyers, greatly decreasing demand and therefore decreasing production of works. In the case of (2) the unlimited supply drops the price to near zero, greatly decreasing the incentive to supply and therefore decreasing production of works. But we want the works to be produced, so we can use (including copy) them.

The solution society (in the USA) came up with: we will temporarily forsake our natural right to copy, artificially creating a third intermediate phase in the supply of infinitely copyable works. (1a) temporary period in which the work has already been created, stimulating demand, but supply is limited, increasing the price and providing incentive for the creator. It is important to remember that the whole purpose for agreeing to this artificial limitation of supply is to achieve an abundance of infinitely copyable and usable works. So copyright is a social contract. You can find the terms of that contract in the US constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

So, you can see that "limited time" is a key part of the social contract. The agreement isn't "You produce works for us to buy, and we'll pay for them forever" it is "We'll temporarily refrain from copying so you can sell your work, you deliver that work to the public domain". Saying to me "Don't copy this work for now, your gr

Re:Make it tolerable?

[ozbird]

I think that if an artist creates a brilliant work of art, and wants to live off the royalties of that work for the rest of their life, they should have that right.

Real artists should be able to produce at least one brilliant work of art, or several acceptable ones, every 14 years.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[monxrtr]

Feel free to duplicate copy any and all of my and anyone else's material possessions, at your leisure, you creative, too stupid to accomplish it, retard. I and they absolve you and they of your and their miracle pretensions. More than one farmer grows corn, more than one woman gives birth, more than one is two is some kind of mathematically defined set. I might be late today. I can be on time tomorrow, but you'll 4-ever be stupid. Cease and desist from using my alphabetical letters and English words. I think if I build my house on top of your house you should continue being a clueless dumbfuck with no protest with regard to be fruitful and multiply means. Besides, you've got nothing. Therefore, you're stupid. An intellectual Glass Joe light weight I lectured to as a student in second grade. Not to mention on the wrong side of history.

even if they get a whopping 15 cents every time it airs

As if a /yawn and a middle finger wasn't good enough, wasn't even more valuable, for you. Come get some economics science PWNAGE! (Hopefully it's brawling enough wide enough for ya to be tempted.)

What is this assinine belief people have that everything should be open and free.

Some call it Freedom. Some call it Liberty. Some call it Give Me Liberty, or give yourself Death. What is this textbook mental disorder that homeless disoriented IP proponent fools have to sue in court plant life for failure to furnish compensation for the carbon dioxide production of ... [stupid people like hellwig 1325869]. Watch out, or special agent Mr. 1325868 will replace you. :P

Next time call me Sir with a capital 'S', Bitch. :P

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Anonymous Coward]

"Make it tolerable ..."

As the original submitter, I chose that phrase carefully. I'm trying to strike the usual, reasonable, Canadian balance. We have to. Oh, I think the bill SUCKS, as would anything DMCA-like. But, obviously, two successive governments want something like this to be brought in, and, like it or lump it, we did sign the WIPO treaty, so something is going to happen. I have to respect the fact that some people have a completely different view. So, let's talk about a tolerable compromise.

For example, I could probably tolerate the DMCA rules that apply to DRM if they changed one thing: that the act of circumvention was illegal ONLY if done in order to perform an act that is illegally infringing on its own. In other words, the act of circumvention isn't illegal if why you're doing it isn't illegal. If you're breaking DRM to exercise your "fair dealing" rights or to reverse-engineer something to be compatible, no problem then. The tools by themselves aren't illegal. If you're breaking DRM in order to copy and sell the result, you're in twice the trouble you were ordinarily. I'm fine with something like that. Break the locks to break the law, double the penalty, otherwise, there's nothing.

The mystery to me is why something like that isn't in there already. The people that wrote this thing are either pretty stupid, didn't read any of the pathological cases related to the DMCA in the US and elsewhere, or they don't really care about striking a sensible balance.

You're right, issues such as copyright terms, library access, and plenty of other things in copyright need changes. I'm all for shortening terms (50 years after creation is my preference) and not burdening libraries with the stupid idea of having to implement DRM even on things that don't have it already. I agree with you. But they put that nonsense in there for a reason to placate some other interest.

All I'm saying is, maybe there's a way for both creators and users to get what they want from changes in copyright. Copyright has always been a balance, and Prentice and his advisors really messed it up this time. So, let's tell him and any other candidate how it *should* be, and make sure all the parties get the message.

I mean, copyright law as an election issue? Something the parties know is of great interest to the public? Something parties will actually put in their platform? Who'd have thought? I can't wait to see the look on the local candidates' faces when I ask each of them what they thought of bill C-61 and what they would change if elected. We've got a golden opportunity here.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Brickwall]

I've already commented, so I can't but would someone please mod parent up? I completely agree; a balance has to be found between the rights of individuals to do what they want with the music/movies they have purchased, and the rights of artists and recording companies not to have their works stolen. I also agree there needs to be some limit on the term of copyright, and not the infinitely extensible 75-year terms favoured by the Disney Corporation.

And let's give both the Liberals and the Tories some credit. Both parties, while in government, introduced DRM-type bills. This was in part to satisfy our WPO obligations. And both parties let the bills die on the order paper. If either one thought DRM was really important, or was in the pocket of the *AA's as has been suggested, it would have been a simple matter to bring the bill forward. That neither party did suggests to me they aren't really interested in seeing it pass, and would prefer to see the status quo (blank media levy, etc.) maintained, just as they maintain our technically illegal milk, egg, and poultry marketing boards.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Tuoqui]

Hell even the guys from Metallica realized the error of their ways when their fans turned their backs on them and went for more P2P friendly groups.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[plasmacutter]

as a university grad, i'm really ticked at your sentiment.

I'm not looking for 80k a year, but I do feel utterly cheated by the fact that i can't even find a 35k a year job because I actually participated in acadaemics instead of internships with a side of classes.

They don't want to train their workforce anymore, and they don't want to reward education with even a chance to prove your worth

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Gr8Apes]

Let me rephrase it: the only tolerable DMCA is a dead DMCA.

Now, let me expand on that thought: the DMCA is purely about preventing people to have access by governmental fiat. It has nothing to do with protecting anyone as the real copyright violators, "pirates", will break DMCA laws while breaking existing laws. The normal citizen, who today can timeshift and format shift legally, becomes a criminal under DMCA.

So, essentially my point is that existing laws are already in place to deal with real piracy. The copyright owners could do wonders with properly utilizing a vast new marketing arm (the internet) by distributing their new works via 128kb/s mp3s (these suck in quality btw, but would be equivalent to free airplay for the masses). The current "distributors" might be marginalized, but that would be progress (in my own personal view, and would actually extend the copyright to whom it should belong to - the creator, not some sleazy fat leech that actually detracts from the creative process)

As for time periods, 28 years total is plenty. The automatic one year grant would address most issues regarding the registration process. The registration process ensures that a copy now exists with the government and can be shared via the library system.

Lastly, you should remember this: copyright was created to promote creativity in individuals by giving them a temporary monopoly on distributorship after which it was to pass into the public domain for the greater good of the public.

The DMCA and current copyright law pretty much contradicts those intentions.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Gr8Apes]

while you're trolling....

I never said copyright law was wrong. I said the terms should be reverted to something more in line with the original intent of the US founders. As for a work being open and free, what makes you think anyone should have the right to profit from their work after they've sold it once? (This is the primary purpose of copyright by the way, to give a creator the ability to sell something more than once, thus gaining greater value from it)

BTW, those original terms (28 years) is just about the average working lifespan of a normal person. There are no fees I'm aware of currently or in the past. However, a trivial fee is warranted if the income is enough to sustain someone for almost 30 years.

The mere fact that something can generate revenue is not enough reason for them to continue to be under copyright. Or are you proposing that Newton's Pricipia or Archimedes The Method of Mechanical Theorems should still be under copyright? After all, just about everything in the modern world works off of principals of both works. Copyright was established to combat the secretive nature of guilds, which passed knowledge on from master to apprentice (usually father to son) and kept it from the public. By giving the creator a limited monopoly, it encouraged them to publish. After the monopoly period, the creation went to the public domain for use by all.

The DMCA is in effect adding a federally enforced trade secret concept on top of a copyright. And said trade secret keeps the item hidden. Or do you think that organizations like the MLB that had their MLB season servers go dark and thus removing all their paid customers ability to see previous games is the "right" way to be?

If I buy something, I expect to "own" it, just like a book. I can cut it, chop it, paste it, display it (yes, you can display a book) and pretty much do anything that's not commercial with it.

Why should I expect anything less for any other copyrighted material?

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Gr8Apes]

actually, electricians usually do create brilliant works. Last time I checked, lights ranged between bright and brilliant.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Pofy]

>By rejecting it and rolling back copyrights to
>their original limited lifespan of 14 years
>after registration.

And how do you propose to have that work internationally? Should each country have some registration and you have to go arround to each country registering (and perhaps failing in country 178 and be without protection)? Or should others have to go arround and check in all countries in the world to see if a work is still registered somewere and thus protected world wide? All this assuming of course that you actually get the same rules in each country so that it is not different in each country and it gets even more chaotic.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Gr8Apes]

Exactly what bearing do the rest have on US copyright? Read the conditions of the Berne Convention signatories carefully, you might be surprised.

We have the situation you are describing already with the mistaken conception that the world is relevant to what occurs internally in a country. For instance, Steamboat Willy was, I'm sure, also published/displayed in the UK. As such, it can be copied in the UK at will as it has been more than 50 years and thus it out of copyright in the UK but it cannot be imported into the US, for instance, as it is still under copyright in the US.

The only clause of real effect is that copyright for international works must be treated the same as those of internal works.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Gr8Apes]

If a longer copyright term (such as 50 years) were adopted, then there should be an early expiry mechanism for copyright. For example, if a work has been in copyright for more than 12 years, then if 4 years pass without the work or a direct derivative being distributed, then it would lapse into the public domain. Note that works under GPL would not be weakened by this requirement, since they are being frequently distributed.

Interesting, you just made an argument for shorter terms than 50 years. :) Although I really really like the concept of "making available" as a clause to copyright. This would prevent Disney's current habit of removing items for 5-10 years to create artificial scarcity. I'd make the argument that once published, you have to remain available within a 2 year period or it lapses into the public domain. After all, that was the goal of copyright, to encourage the creation of works to enrich the public domain, not to enrich the coffers of individuals nor artists.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Pofy]

>Exactly what bearing do the rest have on US
>copyright?

I was asking about how the sugestion of registration would work internationally (compared to the automatic one now). Of course you can ignore what the rest of the world do, but then I assume someone from USA would probably like to have protection in other countries too (which is what the Bern convention for example handle).

So assume one introduce the sugested "registration required" that was proposed and that all countries do that, how would it work (that was my question and you don't seem to answer it).

>The only clause of real effect is that copyright
>for international works must be treated the same
>as those of internal works.

Exactly, which is what I ask about. How would it work in practise to get your work protected not only in your own country? Would you have to go arround registring in every country? Or would you have to go arround and check if a work is registered somewere in the world and thus be protected in yours as well? I can't see such a system that requires registration would work well in an international perspective and that was the reason I asked the question (which you by the way did not answer).

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Gr8Apes]

I'd say registered with at least one of the members of the Berne Convention would be fine, assuming that they share their catalogs. (which is the entire purpose with saved DRM-free digital works anyways, IMHO).

I also wasn't concerned with all other countries operations, just the US one with the huge downwind stink its policies are creating.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Pofy]

>I'd say registered with at least one of the members of the Berne Convention
>would be fine, assuming that they share their catalogs. (which is the entire
>purpose with saved DRM-free digital works anyways, IMHO).

Share with whom? What if some countries doesn't have any registration requirements or have a different system?

>I also wasn't concerned with all other countries operations,
>just the US one with the huge downwind stink its policies are creating.

I think you would start to be concerned as soon as you realise that you end up with no protection in other countries because you didn't follow their requirements or that there was no easy way to check if a specific work was protected through some registration in another country that failed to check and so on.

The idea of registration of course has some good points but tend to not end up well due to the fact that the world is still split up with separate countries. If there was a global registration system it could work. I would say that the main problem is not if you register or not though but the insane time copyright lasts.

Re:Make it tolerable?

[Gr8Apes]

The primary reason for registration is to ensure that a copy remains for the public domain post copyright. The limited time for non-registered copyright is to encourage registering.

I'm sure the Berne Convention folks can get back together to agree on the specifics of registration, since they've already been so willing to sign previous agreements.

Oh well...

[Safiire Arrowny]

I wrote my MP for nothing.

Joking aside, she did write me back a with a proper letter and said she was against the bill and would vote no, so I suppose I should get off my ass and vote for her party in this election? (The NDP if you're wondering).

Re:Oh well...

[neoform]

While I don't think Layton would be a good prime minister, I'm gonna be voting NDP just because they will fight bills likes this, even if the NDP doesn't win many seats.

Re:Oh well...

[Daas]

Mine didn't and it makes me sad to think that my message wasn't heard.

Plus the fact that my MP is Raymond Gravel, the priest who became a politician saying that religion would not play a part in his decisions (Which I think he did all right) but "chose" to leave politics because the Vatican said so...

Apparently I wrote for nothing...

Re:Oh well...

[rbergstrom]

I wrote mine (James Rajotte, Conservative). I asked him why this bill criminalized fair use, exactly how he proposed to enforce it while upholding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and how it looked like suspiciously like everything the American recording/movie industry lobbyists asked for.

Got a nice form letter back saying it was a "made-in-Canada" solution that "protected consumers". So, making me a criminal for watching a DVD on my linux-based laptop is protection? I think I'll do fine on my own, thank you.

Despite Rajotte winning this riding by about a 30% margin the past few elections, I guess I'm voting Green.

Re:Oh well...

[Anonymous Coward]

Please look at the chance of success in your riding first. If the vote might actually put in an NDP, go for it. If there's no chance you're going to have anything but Conservative, go for it. But if you're in a riding that can make a difference by stopping a Conservative win by voting Liberal, sigh and do the right thing. (Then go bawl out your Lib MP for what a useless party they still are.)

I'm in the last type of riding. It ain't a happy thing, but my god we'll be fucked if the Conservatives get more seats.

----
For foreigners reading along, here's how bizarre our riding-based vote-counting can get: Last election the PQ got 10% of the popular vote and 51 seats, while the NDP got 17% of the popular vote but only 29 seats.

All parties except the NDP got more seats than their popular vote would indicate. NDP only got 9% of the seats with their 17% of the vote.

So while there is a lot of support for NDP policies here (if not Jack Layton), in most ridings voting for them is a Nader situation as far as the results go. It's very unfortunate.

Re:Oh well...

[JediTrainer]

Good for you!

For my part, I wrote to my MP as well. Unfortunately my MP happens to be Bev right now (yes, the infamous Ms Oda herself). All I got back was a form letter telling me how the bill is 'fair and balanced', and the fines are 'relatively low' if you copy for personal use unless you break digital locks.

F*** you, Bev. You're not getting my vote. And I'll do what I can to get my neighbours to not vote for you too.

Re:Oh well...

[roman_mir]

You would have to rotate me slowly over a bone fire, while waterboarding, pouring boiling tar into my eyes, thumbscrewing, booting and lashing and stoning and torturing in 20 more different ways for me to vote NDP.

I always vote with libertarian principals in mind, at times this means conservative if there is no good libertarian to vote for, but NDP? Fry me in boiling oil and quarter me first.

Re:Oh well...

[zippthorne]

I'm confused. If he's left politics, how can he still be your MP?

Re:Oh well...

[Jorophose]

I have no idea what my MP is saying on it, but I'm pretty sure he's against at this point (McGuinty).

IMHO, if your local representatives are shit, or they won't stand against the DMCA, vote Green. If only because even though I disagree with the whole socialist-green-politics, the Greens need the votes. If you get as many people convinced to vote Green too all the better. And one Green seat means one less conservative/liberal vote, and one less chance of stupid bills being passed.

Re:Oh well...

[earthforce_1]

I always thought it would be a cold day in hell when I would vote NDP, but I am now wondering if their nanny state tax & spend socialism is a lesser evil than facing astronomical fines for playing my DVDs under Linux, unlocking my cellphone or watching foreign DVDs on region free players.

If Bob Barr ever gives up on the US of A, I wonder if he would be inclined to help start/resurrect the libertarian party of Canada.

Re:Oh well...

[alexo]

F*** you, Bev. You're not getting my vote. And I'll do what I can to get my neighbours to not vote for you too.

Please note the bolded part.
In the current system, your vote isn't worth the paper it is recorded on unless you manage to convince enough people to vote with you.

The only good thing about the DMCA is...

[jhfry]

... the fact that it is difficult to enforce!

I for one

[themadplasterer]

welcome our legislation killing election overlords.

Ok, two thoughts.

[jd]

First, there's never going to be a "good" DMCA, at least not in those terms. The copyright holders (not the artists, who generally get less from DMCA than they did prior to such laws) are trying to have their cake and eat it. Doesn't work.

Second, if you absolutely have to have such a law, or ANY law on technology, then it has to be written in collaboration with technologists who can help politicians understand what will and won't work, and what is and is not enforceable. You CANNOT EVER make a good law in a vacuum. Every single time politicians and a single special-interest side of the debate try to control everything, it falls apart. If you don't listen, you cannot learn. If you do not learn, you cannot hope to avoid the mistakes of the past.

The amendment to tie circumvention to actual...

[plasmacutter]

If you tie anti-circumvention to actual infringement rather than blanket-ban it, that's a proper balance.

This would mean tools which meet the betamax standard for substantial non-infringing uses could still be produced and marketed.

among those tools would be region free dvd players, mod chips, etc.

And nothing of value was lost

[Jorophose]

But let's not count the chickens before the eggs hatch, because the conservative "government" might not be wiped out entirely in this election.

Of course conservative party has never really held a real majority passed Sir John A MacDonald's days, or maybe Diefenbaker. So they could quite likely fall in October.

Re:And nothing of value was lost

[m.ducharme]

Mulroney did pretty well for two terms...big majorities in each.

Is the Canadian DMCA proposal's life force

[Shikaku]

Is the Canadian DMCA proposal's life force running out?

Re:So now we...

[Cathoderoytube]

For what exactly? That our political system is setup in such a way that proposed bills get turfed if they're introduced too close to an election? There've been many good bills that have met the same fate because of elections.

I'm always confused about the argument

[Anonymous Coward]

As a writer I find it odd and upsetting that people feel that I should have severely limited rights to my own work. Why should anyone but me have the right to my work, especially during my lifetime but even beyond that. My legacy to my family are my collected works. If no one wishes to buy the work that's called the free market and I'm fine with that but why should other people have free access to my work? Lets say after the 14 years as some have proposed I no longer control my work so companies begin producing film adaptations of my work for which they will benefit financially but I won't. Writers generally work many years before being recognized so say half my work falls out of copyright without being published due to copyright laws but publishers and studios retained copies. I become popular so then they are able to go to their vaults and pull out copies of my work and exploit them without me receiving a cent ever for my work but they profit. Allowing writers and other artists to retain control of their work harms no one but removing their rights potentially removes their ability to make a living from their work. I've already chosen to retire in three years in part because of the change in attitudes towards artists rights. I'll continue to write because writers have a need to write but I won't release future work to the public. How is this benefiting the public? I know other artists that are considering similar life changes. The surest way to retain rights to your work is to never make it public. I've improved dramatically over the years and I definitely feel my best work is still to come but the public won't benefit from that work. Allowing artists to retain rights in no way harms the public but driving them underground does.

Re:I'm always confused about the argument

[Anonymous Coward]

I won't release future work to the public.

That is ABSOLUTELY FINE by me. I don't need your trash. I DO need the ability to communicate freely. If the "price" of being able to communicate freely is the "loss" of your future work, I can live with that. Face it, everyone's right to communicate freely is simply more important than your "right" to escape the free market via (technologically enforced or otherwise) copyright monopoly grants (note that if copyright exists, a free market _doesn't_)

If you don't want it copied, don't fucking release it.

Anyway, if I have a COPY of your work, you still have the work. Things are simply NOT WORTH the work put into them. That's called a "labor theory of value" and is a central fallacy of pre-20th-century economic thought, leads straight to Marxist communist theory, but is totally wrong.

If you think a "labor theory of value" is right (it isn't, but anyway), then I point out that billions of dollars "worth" of man-hours have gone into the sotware on a linux CD. NO single man on earth is going to equal that amount of work, ever. So, the solution is simple - we give you a linux distro CD, and maybe a cookie.

Re:I'm always confused about the argument

[TheRaven64]

As a writer, I find it odd how a small number of members of my profession find copyright so hard to understand. Society has done me, and those engaged in a similar occupation, a great favour by creating a framework by which I can easily profit from my work. The natural state for information is to be copied as widely as is desired, but society agrees that if I publish my work then it will enforce a time-limited monopoly on my behalf. In exchange for this, all I have to do is write and publish my writings.

The body my published writings is my legacy to society, not to any specific subset. If I wish to leave a written legacy to my direct descendants, then I can do this easily by simply not publishing them. Studies have shown that the majority of profits on most written work are generated in the first three to five years after publishing, so how does a ten or even fourteen year copyright harm the writer? Allowing other writers to create derived works after this period benefits both them and society as a whole considerably.

And why do you believe that publishers would benefit from shorter copyrights after you become famous? If your work is that good then you can make it a provision of your later contracts that the publisher may not publish any of your out-of-copyright works without giving you a royalty, and then people can still buy a printed copy which makes you money, or an unauthorised version which doesn't. If anything, you benefit. Publishers can make more money on works they can exclusively sell, and shorter copyrights give them a stronger incentive to keep buying more new works (they already have this to a degree, due to the early peak in profits for most works).

Mind you, since you're posting AC, claiming to be a writer, and don't know how to break a paragraph, I strongly suspect you are just a troll.

Re:I'm always confused about the argument

[earthforce_1]

I'll continue to write because writers have a need to write but I won't release future work to the public.

If that is the price to pay for not having my ISP spy on me, and all of my electronics crippled to enforce somebody else's business model, I'll call it a bargain.

Re:I'm always confused about the argument

[belmolis]

When writers work many years before becoming recognized, it is usually because they can't get their stuff published at all or because it isn't yet good enough to sell well. In that case, the odds are that nobody is going to want to go back and make a movie of your early work anyhow. Their interest will be in the relatively recent work that has gotten published and attracted public interest. If an author's work becomes classic, there may be revived interest in earlier work, but the odds are that that will happen after the author is dead, so it isn't really relevant here. How often does it happen that film producers become interested in the published work of a still living author produced more than 28 years ago on the basis of his or her recent work? I doubt that this situation arises often enough for us to take it into account in copyright law. (28 years rather than 14 is the relevant number since even the shortest serious proposals that I know of are like the old copyright law in providing for an initial copyright period of 14 years with the possibility of renewal for another 14.)

Re:I'm always confused about the argument

[mindstrm]

The other point of view is that you produce work in line with copyright law.. the economics of being a writer are strongly rooted there. If copyright were, say, only 10 years, and then automatic public domain, perhaps books would be more expensive, perhaps writers would write more often... perhaps quality would even suffer.

The issue at hand is that copyright terms have been extended and extended and extended, and in the confusion created by our new-found ability to replicate information globally and instantly, knee-jerk reactions are creating bad laws that further restrict things beyond the intent of copyright law.

Works are not created in a vacuum - human knowledge in general is built upon generation by generation. Your works at some point could become the foundation of future works.

To exaggerate a bit - we could end up in a situation where no more works are created, because everyone for the last 200 years owes royalties to everyone who can conceivably claim that your work is somehow derived from their work.

If you became really popular, and your old works were in public domain - not only could the studios exploit your work, but ANYONE, including you, could exploit your work.

The industry will adjust.

They will bring it back

[xra]

One more reason to make sure the conservatives do not form a majority government.

Re:So now we...

[LaskoVortex]

our political system is setup in such a way that proposed bills get turfed if they're introduced too close to an election? There've been many good bills that have met the same fate because of elections.

Better ten good laws get turfed than one bad one get passed.

Geez, that didn't take long.

[Anonymous Coward]

Feels like just yesterday I watched the conservative government overtake the liberals. Now we have to go through another election? Yeesh.

Is it just me, or do most Canadians not really seem to care about elections? I've never heard anyone seriously discussing Canadian politics. I have coworkers who can ramble on for hours about Obama vs. McCain, but never have I heard people really debate issues on our side of the border.

Re:So now we...

[Deus.1.01]

If i took time to study the issue i might have lost first post.

Re:So now we...

[Z00L00K]

"Here comes the tax return..." ;-)

But in reality, it seems that the only ones really pushing for the more extreme copyright acts are the *AA:s and this means that they want to be in control of our lives and what we see and hear.

Re:So now we...

[Vectronic]

What if one of those good laws is a law against bad laws?...huh?... HUH?...yeah...thought so...lol

Where do I get a VISA ???

[mmu_man]

or citizenship, even?

Strike a better balance?

[erroneus]

The balance in the the copyright industry's interests already even without their DMCA laws. It would be good to see a "better balance" but it is already pretty far in their favor with their "blank media" laws collecting them royalties in advance of its use (whether it is used for personal-use copying or not!)

Re:So now we...

[sortius_nod]

You had a valid point until you put "lol" at the end... fail!

Re:So now we...

[monxrtr]

What if nobody gives a shit? Then what? The RIAA will *still* lose. WTF do I care if they only have to pay me $200M instead of $800M, in one particular case? They're still BANKRUPT in The End. Does it really matter all that much if I piss on their heads at a 70 degree angle versus a 33 degree angle?

Re:So now we...

[monxrtr]

The "**AAs"? Fuck the MAFIAA. Fuck the RIAA. They lost. It's over. Eliot Spitzer. John Edwards. Valerie (or is it Sarah?) Plain. There's plenty more from where that came from. X-Treme Copyright Acts are good for us! Let the big dummies walk the plank whilst threatened with a middle finger.

Re:So now we...

[kohaku]

You had a valid point until you put "lol" at the end... fail!

You had a valid point until you put "fail" at the end... lol!

Re:So now we...

[monxrtr]

Epistemological Breakout Ball Bouncing against, upon, on, and over Bricks ... Too Fast To Handle Through :P

Please Insert Another Post.

Canadian DMCA Proposal About To Die

[Fozzyuw]

Canadian DMCA Proposal Needs Food Badly... (which is when the stupid wizard shoots the f*ing food)

Technically...

[Brickwall]

The government did not "fall" - that is, it was not defeated in the House of Commons on a confidence measure. PM Stephen Harper is expected to request an election writ tomorrow, but the Governor-General is under no obligation to dissolve the house. She could ask the opposition parties if they could form a coalition government (unlikely, but possible), or she could refuse, and send Mr. Harper back to the House, where he could either dare the opposition to defeat him on a confidence measure (which would likely have to be a bill so contentious as to hand the opposition a ready-made election issue), or wait until Mr. Harper's own law which set an election date for late 2009 comes into effect.

Again, technically, once back in the House, Harper could introduce a confidence motion, and then ensure enough of his MP's were either absent or abstained so that he was defeated, but this would be so transparent that many Canadians would be annoyed, and not support him at the ballot box. Parliamentary democracy is so much fun!

Re:Technically...

[mindstrm]

I've always wondered - it is always stated that the Gov. Gen. is only a ceremonial role, and although required by law, he or she always does what they are asked.

I've always wondered - if, for instance, her signature is required to sign any new bill into law, and she is not legally obligated to sign it.. could she not simply refuse?

Re:Harper doesn't just ignore fixed election dates

[m.ducharme]

To be fair (and I'm not saying I agree with his selection process - I don't), the committee couldn't make a choice because the opposition members on it didn't show up, and quorum couldn't be reached. You can't blame Harper for that (but you can congratulate those MPs).

Re:Harper doesn't just ignore fixed election dates

[arthurpaliden]

By law he is allowed to do it. He was just trying to reform the system with out all the hastle of getting a new bill passed. It is the oposition that appeared not want to change the statis quo. Since they never showed up to participate in the selection process.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:So now we...

[Cathoderoytube]

What a stupid thing to say.

'Good thing that bill expanding healthcare to ensure all Canadians have a doctor got turfed. A DMCA bill was also attached to it.'
'Good thing that bill that finally repays all debt for all the abuse our native peoples have endured over the years got turfed. A DMCA bill as attached to it'
'Good thing that affordable housing bill got turfed. A DMCA bill was attached to it'
'Good thing that bill raising taxes for the top 1% wealthiest people in the country got turfed. A DMCA bill was attached to it'

At least the DMCA bill never got passed. The only thing that's actually important in any country is copyright laws.

Good idea!

[pubwvj]

DMCA laws are a good idea because they will allow the right full owners of information to hog it forever, even suppressing new ideas. Look at how wonderfully Disney does it. Fantasy land, a dark, dark fantasy land. A nightmare I wish we could wake up from. DMCA laws are wonderful. Not.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

Re:So now we...

[laddiebuck]

It's not so much cause as symptom. This was introduced by a minority government -- those are never very stable in parliamentary democracies. Any single vote could cause the government to fail, so it treads lightly and in this case, tries to start again.

Re:So now we...

[uniquegeek]

So the current propoganda would have you believe ('cuz it's cool to hate the blue man). It was the majority Liberals who introduced it the first time around, but we don't often hear that, do we?

This is worth it

[belmolis]

The death of this awful bill alone is worth the expense and trouble of this basically unnecessary election.

Re:So now we...

[laddiebuck]

Well, I'm not Canadian, so please accept that as apology for my ignorance. Thanks for clarifying.

Re:So now we...

[BitterOak]

Your argument is a valid one, but you might have won more people to your side, and gotten modded higher if all your examples weren't so one-sided. Most of the examples bills you cite would be considered fairly far to the left of center by a majority of Slashdot readers.

Re:So now we...

[mindstrm]

In what way were these bills attached to the DMCA-like bill?

Re:So now we...

[uniquegeek]

Hey, you're allowed. The sad thing is many Canadians don't know the difference...

So many Canadians are busy feeling the hate on the other political party because it makes them look cool to their peers. What they should be doing instead is paying attention what their own damned MP or party is doing.