Tech Companies Say Don't Blame Canada For Copyright Problems

An anonymous reader writes "The Computer & Communications Industry Association, which includes a who's-who of the tech world, including Microsoft, Google, T-Mobile, Fujitsu, AMD, eBay, Intuit, Oracle, and Yahoo, has issued a strong defense of current Canadian copyright law, arguing that the US is wrong to place Canada on the annual Special 301 list. The submission argues that the US should not criticize Canada for not implementing anti-circumvention rules (PDF) and warns against using the Special 301 process to 'remake the world in the image of the DMCA.'"

Comments

Proudly Canadian

[KazW]

I love the fact that I can download copy written content without penalty as long as I don't redistribute it... Fuckin' eh!!

Re:Proudly Canadian

[Nerdfest]

As far as I've seen, those warnings are given to people downloading using P2P, which also counts as distribution.

Re:Proudly Canadian

[KazW]

I only get 100 gigs a month from Shaw, I usually do at least double that, but all my connections are encrypted, be it BT or usenet. So far, no warnings after a few years of doing so, but they have mentioned that my area has very low usage compared to my personal usage when I've called to get my modem reset.

To get back on topic, the chances are very remote, and that's the way I like it. Personally, I feel Canadian copyright law is far ahead of the US's DMCA centric attitude. The nature of copyright has to evolve with current times and technologies, allowing P2P downloads for personal use while putting a fee on MP3 players and blank media is a compromise that I see as fair.

Re:Proudly Canadian

[twidarkling]

Yep. Personally, I'm a big fan of the fact that we can format-shift, and make copies of friends' music, and stuff like that. I recognize the necessity to respect copyright, but the US has gone completely overboard, and few industries have any idea of the proper way to deal with it.

(In case any industry movers/shakers are reading this, the proper way isn't DRM, it's increasing ease and accessibility of your work.)

Re:Proudly Canadian

[realityimpaired]

To get back on topic, the chances are very remote, and that's the way I like it. Personally, I feel Canadian copyright law is far ahead of the US's DMCA centric attitude. The nature of copyright has to evolve with current times and technologies, allowing P2P downloads for personal use while putting a fee on MP3 players and blank media is a compromise that I see as fair

The reason that things like file sharing are legal in Canada is specifically because Canadian copyright law *hasn't* changed. Our laws were written in the 1980's, when it wasn't really easy to copy a large volume of music, and the risk was mostly just people copying a CD to a cassette for a friend, or making a mix tape for somebody. You weren't dealing with high volume copies, and you weren't dealing with anything near the ubiquity that the Internet affords, which is a large part of why the laws are so relaxed here.

Re:Proudly Canadian

[epp_b]

Perhaps it's that Canadian copyright law was wisely crafted with the future in mind.

Re:Proudly Canadian

[Again]

Perhaps it's that Canadian copyright law was wisely crafted with the future in mind.

I see that you are not familiar with our politicians.

Re:Proudly Canadian

[schon]

The reason that things like file sharing are legal in Canada is specifically because Canadian copyright law *hasn't* changed.

Actually, Canadian copyright law has been changing constantly.

Our laws were written in the 1980's

Incorrect. 1988 was the first major overhaul since the law was written in 1924, however there have been a bunch of updates (in 1989, 1993, 1994, 1996, 1997, 2001 and 2007) to bring it to its current state - for example, when the 1988 law was enacted, the private copying right that we now enjoy (and that this thread is about) did not exist - it was illegal to copy any music without written permission, regardless of the reason. It wasn't until the amendment in 1997 that we gained the legal right to make private copies.

Comment removed

[account_deleted]

Comment removed based on user account deletion

So...

[Anonymous Coward]

Where are these companies when it comes to US legislation?

You're on the list

[sakdoctor]

I vaguely remember at primary school, the use of friends/enemies lists in the ongoing process of classroom politics.

Apparently some people never grow out of classroom politics, and go on to become actual politicians. "Canada can't come to my birthday party."

Canada's IP laws are in some senses stricter

[Anonymous Coward]

But they've left out all of the dumb, anti-consumer portions that increasingly blight US law. How DARE they!

Special 301 list ??

[phoxix]

I hope the Canadians put us on a "Special Douche Bag" list

Gotta love our ability to spit on our friends

Re:Special 301 list ??

[twidarkling]

Canada likes America. We just think you're mostly all insane. But after putting up with Quebec for so long, that's not a big deal.

Insanity.

[headkase]

My personal opinion, as a Canadian, is that copyright regulation such as in the USA is insane. With that in mind I am proud of my Government for resisting the tide. There is a balance that needs to be drawn somewhere, I do not believe it is where industry in the USA would like it to be. With this in mind, let the USA go all hysterical: as the pendulum swings around with other parties such as my Government providing some balance the theory, and hope, is that it will eventually settle somewhere sane.

Re:Insanity.

[RealGrouchy]

With that in mind I am proud of my Government for resisting the tide.

Don't be too hasty. The Government would have passed draconian copyright legislation a long time ago (they've tried a few times) if it weren't for the fact that it's a minority government.

- RG>

Re:US influence

[dryeo]

When I was younger, 40 odd years ago, I used to wonder why America was considered a bastion of freedom. Possession of certain plants were highly illegal, being a communist was illegal, kids who went to the States for a year of schooling came back with stories about having to swear allegiance to the flag every day much like in a dictatorship. Black people were finally being allowed to use the same washrooms as white people. They could with a straight face have a constitution which stated all men were equal and allowed slavery.
America always seemed like the ultimate example of successful propaganda.

Re:US influence

[Daniel Dvorkin]

Well, first of all, the Constitution doesn't say that all men are created equal; the Declaration of Independence does. (Lots of Americans get those mixed up too.) The former is, in theory the supreme law of the land, while the latter is a document of great moral authority but no legal authority. But yes, it was written by a slaveowner, and that paradox occupied a great deal of the nation's early existence. It kind of came to a head in this little dustup a century and a half ago. Since then, we still haven't fully dealt with the consequences.

The basic problem is, you ask ten different Americans to tell you what "freedom" means, and you'll get eleven different definitions. Some are concerned almost exclusively with economic freedom; as long as they can make money, they're happy, regardless of what else may be going on. Some focus on social freedom: who they sleep with, where (or whether) they worship, what substances they can put in their bodies. Some are concerned primarily with freedom from foreign military threats; pretty much everyone agrees this is a prerequisite for the other freedoms, but there are and always have been many who take their concern with it to fanatical extremes -- they forget that in order to defend our freedom from those who want to take it away, we must have freedom left to defend.

And no matter what kind of freedom people are most worried about, a regrettably large number will say, in effect, "I've got my freedom, screw yours." Thus those fighting for the Confederacy, and their latter-day counterparts in white sheets and pointy hats, could claim in all seriousness that they were fighting for freedom: their freedom, and the fact that preserving their view of freedom meant denying it to large numbers of the people who lived in their society didn't bother them at all. Thus the flag could be defined as the symbol of freedom, and freedom limited to those who wished to pledge allegiance to it. Thus any act, no matter how vile, that was anti-communist could be defined as serving the interests of freedom.

Personally, my definition of freedom includes not only my freedom to do what I want to do, but others' freedom to do what they want to do, including things that I personally have no desire to do. But this definition is far from universally accepted. I don't think this is an exclusively American problem by any means, but it does seem like we're a bit better at others at fooling ourselves into thinking we're implementing a universal definition of freedom, while picking and choosing our freedoms carefully in practice.