Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Politicians Reverse Course On DMCA
An anonymous reader writes "Michael Geist reports that the two Canadian Ministers responsible for copyright seem to have reversed course on copyright and now appear to oppose a Canadian DMCA. At a government event this week, Industry Minister Tony Clement spoke of how things have changed and of the need for consultation, while Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore emphasized the great potential of the Internet and how older politicians often don't get it."
The Conservative Party of Canada isn't kowtowing to american business interests?
What?
I think my brain just had a core dump.
I like it when this sort of thing happens.
signature is pants
However It would be a good idea to keep up on the events that can influence their own reelections and how they are perceived by the public.
As I understand it (I am American and in Texas, far from Canada) Canada has some really bad setup of restrictions on media already since most of it is imported from the US, as well as some tax on blank media since it COULD be used for illegal copies and such, and I would assume there is more BS like that.
Anything can be found funny, from a certain point of view.
We have to look at this in the context of whats going on in the Canadian parliament. They are a minority government and they don't want to necessarily do anything stupid that would alienate half the population. So they have decided to not go forward with that legislation. They may decide to go ahead anyways. Right now they are consulting not with the public but with so called most successful CEO's in industry. Which means that they are just going tow the party line and not do anything all that innovative. So put your faith in the snakes that are the Canadian politicians. They are bigger liars then George W Bush.
Sounds like some checks bounced.
Translation: We didn't expect this strong an outpouring of opposition and we know we already only have a minority government so we're just going to lay low a bit and not piss people off. Sound good?
And, yes - it does sound good. Stop messing things up! Stop selling our country out! More importantly, stop selling our country out to foreign media corporations!
I also wonder what's going on behind the scenes. It seems that a lot of things are going through internationally as "treaties", as has been mentioned in many US-centric articles. Perhaps there's no need for such legislation if it's already been pushed through as "confidential" treaty clauses...
We all generally know what ACTA is and who is largely behind it. It seems increasingly, we see more stories of government bodies moving away from enhanced copyright assault techniques targeting individual users, abusers and consumers. ACTA is still "secret" so we may never hear about what is going on in the negotiations, but could these laws and failures to enact laws be a sign of what may not happen? This could be significant, after all [sarcasm] ACTA is a matter of national security [/sarcasm].
DMCA can be used to quickly shut down this leech sites
The alternative, in countries that don't have a statutary notification scheme, is a court order. These are relatively easy to get, the only disadvantage being they cost money upfront that you may not be able to get back if you can't trace the identity of the leech. While this is a disadvantage, I am of the opinion that "no punishment without judicial oversight" is a good maxim for how stuff like this should work. DMCA notification is too easy to abuse.
Or Shatner could decide to make another CD.
You sick, twisted bastard!
I don't know whether to run away screaming hysterically, or to salute your twistedness!
I think I'll just settle for another beer...eh?!
Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
Your analogy assumes that a) The site makes good revenue from ads, which is not exactly a common experience for most websites, and b) The leech is hosted in a country that gives a damn about the DMCA.
I prefer rogues to imbeciles because they sometimes take a rest.
To bad nothing stops the leech from sending a DMCA to YOUR site! Increasing there own profits even more.
Run, DMC, run!
DCMA is a four-letter word, and that does seem to effect a lot of people's thinking. There are definitely some very good provisions in the package. Others, not so good.
I think everyone agrees that the takedown system is a winner, for everyone involved. ISP's have been a bit easy to scare into believing the takedowns and not bothering to check if they're for real, but it seems that they're calming down now. I would be perfectly happy to see a similar provision in Canadian law.
On the other hand, there's the reverse-engineering issue. This is clearly a very bad idea, and from what I can see, unenforceable. Had this section been left out, I think everyone would consider DCMA as generally positive, but instead it generates massive hate. Sad really.
Maury
Um... I don't think I've ever seen anyone agree the takedown system is a good thing. ISPs don't bother to check if they're for real, and neither do sites like YouTube check for fair use/dealing, or anything else. A DMCA takedown order is a blank cheque to fucking up anyone, because once it's taken down, it's damned near impossible to get it put back up.
Canada: The US's more awesome sibling.
A pleasant side effect of Canada fractured, regionalized politics and it's inability to elect a majority government any more is that as soon as someone tries to cash in a political favor, it's ammunition the opposition parties (plural!) can use to threaten an election and alter the balance of power. There's an actual incentive to call out the ruling party on unpopular special-interest gimmies! And since parties receive a few pennies a year of funding for every vote they get, every voter matters.
Canada consistently gets better, more innovative, progressive and balanced policies during minority governments despite how much they all whine that they can't get anything done without a majority.
A) Trying to avoid an election
or
B) Trying to cozy up to voters before an election.
and
C) If they win the election they will try and ram the stuff through again.
On the other hand, how many hit-n-run sites have there been that really are DMCA violations? I'd say very many, and a key characteristic of these sites is that leave no (valid) contact information - the general idea is to upload it, point people to it and have as many as possible download before it disappears. I doubt you hear about how warez dump #4563456 was taken down.
Trying to stop information that's already out on the internet is pretty much mission impossible to begin with, but if there is to be any realistic chance there needs to a process for taking it down that is almost as easy as putting it up. Otherwise people can just throw up a new mirror every few weeks, making the court order pretty much worthless because you never catch up.
I agree there should probably be a better counterclaim process though, and perhaps some protection for consumers from ISPs that just want to nuke/delete any "problem" users. The most important part is in any case the ISP immunity when they follow this process. That way, ISPs don't need to self-censor - or rather, censor you - out of fear of liability.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings