Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

"Canadian DMCA" Rising From the Dead

Posted by kdawson on from the once-more-to-the-barricades dept.

mandelbr0t writes "The Canadian Conservative government is preparing to reintroduce amended copyright legislation on Thursday (we discussed the rumor some weeks ago). Most sources say that the proposed legislation is very similar to Bill C-61, generally dubbed the 'Canadian DMCA.' It still includes definitions of 'technological protections' and criminalizes 'circumvention' of those protections. Bill C-61 died in the summer of 2008, facing massive opposition from the Canadian public. Once again, it's time for Canadians to get politically active; ORC ran a large campaign with the last attempt, and will likely be updated soon with the new proposed legislation." Read below for more of the submitter's thoughts on the coming battle.
As with Bill C-61, the Conservative government has launched a campaign of misinformation to attempt to force the law down our throat. Industry Minister Tony Clement is trying to convince people that "format shifting" is currently illegal. Of course, it is not actually criminal, and enforcement of private infringement, as always, is prevented by the fact that massive invasion of privacy would have to occur. Second, Mr. Clement is claiming that this law is necessary to bring Canada into line with the WIPO Treaty. The above readings discredit WIPO altogether. Furthermore, the two articles that are being referred to are Articles 11 and 12. Note the use of the phrase "effective technological measure" and the absence of any criminality requirement. This legislation is not necessary to provide amended copyright law that is consistent with the WIPO treaty, and will hopefully die an uneventful death, to be buried for eternity.

41 of 211 comments (clear)

  1. I wonder if they will cut the tax... by mlawrence · · Score: 5, Interesting

    We already pay a special tax on blank DVDs and CDs because of "pirating". If the government passes this bill, do you think they would axe this tax? Would they be required to?

    1. Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... by cosm · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If the government passes this bill, do you think they would axe this tax? Would they be required to?

      IANAC, but from experience here in the US, once a tax is in effect, it is like a cancer. All it does is grow, and no matter what you do to get rid of it, it usually pops back up in one form or another.

      --
      'We are trying to prove ourselves wrong as quickly as possible, because only in that way can we find progress.' RPF
    2. Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... by mark-t · · Score: 4, Informative

      As it sits right now in Canada, it can be reasonably argued that the levy is essentially a taxation on the consumer for the privilege for making private copies of copyrighted works. Whether or not one exercises this privilege does not diminish the fact that one still has it, so the levy has some justification on that basis. However, since making private copies wouldn't be legal anymore on digital media under C-61 or something similar unless the publisher has granted permission for it, there would be no legal grounds to continue the levy, since publishers will either be giving permission for private copying, making the levy redundant with the purchase price of the copyrighted work, or they will not allowed to privately copy at all, making the levy an unrepresented tax - something which is wholeheartedly illegal.

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    3. Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... by icannotthinkofaname · · Score: 2, Funny

      This makes perfect sense, too. To safely remove a tax, the government would first need a budget surplus greater than or equal to the money brought in by that tax. As long as governments have deficits, they can't reasonably do away with any taxes, no matter how stupid, unless the tax in question is illegal somehow.

      --
      Let q be a radix > 1. I am in ur base-q, killing 10 d00ds.
    4. Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... by silentcoder · · Score: 2, Insightful

      >Format shifting is illegal with DMCA.
      >So, we got a tax which has an illegal source.

      Nothing new about that, profit from illegal activities is still taxable for example. Remember, they couldn't nail Al Capone for his drink smuggling during prohibition - but they nailed him for not declaring the income he made from it on his tax return.

      --
      Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
    5. Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... by Syberz · · Score: 2, Insightful

      IAAC (I am a Canadian) and I can tell you that you're right. Taxes here never go away. For example, the income tax which is taking half my salary was a temporary measure to pay for the costs of the FIRST World War... temporary, my arse...

      --
      ~Syberz
    6. Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... by mark-t · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Actually, it's highly probable. The Conservative party has expressed opposition to this levy for quite some time.

      As I said elsewhere, however, I'd rather have to pay a regulated fee or tax in exchange for the liberty to be able to format-shift *ANY* works I might happen to have rather than only be legally allowed to do it when the publisher has acquiesced to allow it. I might still be able to technically accomplish it anyways, but I'd personally rather rest in the knowledge that I would not also be happening to break the law. Private copying (of audio works in particular) has been an explicit infringement exemption in Canada for a number of years and bill C-61 essentially revokes that long-standing exemption (by making it all but moot in the 21st century by narrowing allowed private copying primarily to non-digitally stored works).

      --
      File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
    7. Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Amusingly enough, the previous Liberal goverments did run surpluses. They paid down the debt, too. They did this by being reasonably responsible (on a grand scale) and not buying votes (or participating in ideological masturbation) with tax cuts and banking those surpluses for when they would actually be needed. They reduced taxes fairly strategically, too.

      They got booted out due to spending scandal that involved a few hundred thousand dollars. Meanwhile, we have a Conservative government that mismanaged the economy to the tune of several billion.

      Where's our Gomery inquiry for cutting government revenue right at the tip of the worst recession in history? You know, the one you thought "wasn't a big deal" and would just "blow over".

    8. Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I object to paying any tax or fee in order to be able to do what I want with my own property. I already paid a fee when I *purchased* the item in question. I don't see why I need to pay additional money to the government in order for them to recognize my rights to *my* property. All you're doing is shifting *who* acquiesces to allow you to do things, you're not fighting for the central principle of the freedom to do it in the first place.

  2. Why it will win eventually by RandomFactor · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Bad law can fail a thousand times, but it only needs to pass once.

    --
    --- Mercutio was right.
    1. Re:Why it will win eventually by bmo · · Score: 4, Informative

      It's called crisis fatigue. This is what they're counting on.

      --
      BMO

    2. Re:Why it will win eventually by rtfa-troll · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The answer is to get a counter proposal in via amendments such as the following:

      • Copyright holders who misrepresent their copyright lose it (e.g. if you claim "no copy may be made without authorisation" your copyright is invalid because you failed to mention fair dealiing/fair use).
      • Copyright and any of their representatives have to be clear to the public that the copyright is a trade off with free speech. Again, misrepresentation as a property right automatically voids copyright.
      • Copyright only applies to formats which will be reliable and easy to copy after the term of copyright is up.
      • Reduce copyright limits to maximum 10 years.
      • Attempting to interfere with private copying becomes a criminal offence
      • Copyright only applies to works of serious artistic, educational, informational or intellectual value. Not e.g. to pop songs. (probably as an affirmative defence of "copying a valueless work")

      This is unlikely to succeed this time round, but if people gradually begin to learn about it and understand the benefits of such changes then it may succeed eventually. Getting that kind of thing into the debate will make the lobbyists try to close it down really quickly.

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
    3. Re:Why it will win eventually by jimicus · · Score: 4, Interesting

      You know something? Those of us who have moderate views on copyright protection have tried suggesting all sorts of moderations like this.

      I know of no country where a single one of them has been implemented. Yet I know of lots of countries which have enacted absurd "just shy of perpetual copyright, any attempt to break it is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and silly fines" laws. Clearly the copyright holders are asking for silly things and getting them.

      We need to ask why that is. Is it because nobody is contacting their representative to say "hang on a minute here..."? Or is it because the arguments we put forward are viewed as being so pathetically weak that they may as well be ignored? Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

    4. Re:Why it will win eventually by somersault · · Score: 5, Interesting

      We need to ask why that is. Is it because nobody is contacting their representative to say "hang on a minute here..."? Or is it because the arguments we put forward are viewed as being so pathetically weak that they may as well be ignored? Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

      Or is it because we the public aren't really able to provide any serious kickbacks compared to big business? Well actually we do pay a lot already in taxes, but we don't really get any say in where our money goes. I never vote in general elections - IMO it's almost entirely pointless - but I would certainly vote on individual issues if given the chance.

      I understand that a lot of people out there are dumb fucks and that if the complete running of the country was left to public opinion then it could screw things up a lot, but I would like to be able to vote in a more finely grained manner on several topics. Writing damn letters to people all the time whining about everything I don't like doesn't sound like a very good use of my time either, I'd be sat there for the rest of my life just writing and complaining. And my letters would probably go unnoticed in the piles of other letters from other people complaining about asinine things. IMO we need national online polling systems. No more stupid, inefficient, buggy, paper ballots. I'm sure it'll happen eventually, maybe not in my lifetime though..

      --
      which is totally what she said
    5. Re:Why it will win eventually by Znork · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments

      Copyright holders have very few valid economic arguments; the economic effects of copyright are fundamentally equivalent to any other taxation scheme. Claiming that more copyright is better for the economy is equivalent to claiming more tax is better for the economy.

      The more likely flow of argument is that industry goon tells USTR representative that more copyright is good for him, then the USTR threatens various countries, who cave in as handing money to the industry goon is cheaper than fighting trade wars.

      Of course, the main reason they get away with that is because IPR funding isn't accounted for in state budgets as it's an externally gathered tax. Had the actual state budget had a '"insurance" payoffs to the MAFIAA so nothing "happens" to our trade status' line it might have been a bit harder to motivate.

    6. Re:Why it will win eventually by metacell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

      It's ironic you should say that, because economic arguments are the strongest arguments against copyright.

      For example, there is no doubt that copyright terms are far, far too long to be beneficial to society. One or two decades is more than enough to give creators an incentive to create; having longer copyright terms than necessary will only prevent society from enjoying the full benefits of the works already created. (Read Against Intellectual Monopoly for more economic arguments.)

      It's mostly a matter of lobbying. For example, here in the EU, record companies approached politicians with scary-sounding numbers of how much the industry loses on pirating, explained how many people would lose their jobs if it continued, and got an extension to the copyright of music performances. So now Elvis Presley's recordings are kept out of the public domain for a few more decades (yes, the copyright to Elvis Presleys recordings are held by a German music company). The politicians themselves were too uninformed to see through the layers of bullshit.

    7. Re:Why it will win eventually by Rary · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It's ironic you should say that, because economic arguments are the strongest arguments against copyright.

      For example, there is no doubt that copyright terms are far, far too long to be beneficial to society.

      Ah, but therein lies the problem. You're concerned with the economic benefits to society, rather than the economic benefits to the copyright holder. The problem is that modern governments aren't made up of idealistic intellectuals. Modern governments are made up of businessmen, and businessmen aren't interested in the original purpose of copyright law to benefit society, they're interested in the modern bastardized purpose of copyright law to guarantee perpetual profits to copyright holders.

      --

      "You cannot simultaneously prevent and prepare for war." -- Albert Einstein

    8. Re:Why it will win eventually by kent_eh · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No more stupid, inefficient, buggy, paper ballots. I'm sure it'll happen eventually, maybe not in my lifetime though..

      As opposed to those efficient, slick, shiny electronic ballots that our neighbours to the south use?
      No thanks, I'll stick to the proven method that takes much more effort to screw with.

      --

      ---
      "I can't complain, but sometimes still do..." Joe Walsh
    9. Re:Why it will win eventually by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Clearly the copyright holders are asking for silly things and getting them.

      We need to ask why that is.

      It's because of corruption and bribes.

      Is it because nobody is contacting their representative to say "hang on a minute here..."? Or is it because the arguments we put forward are viewed as being so pathetically weak that they may as well be ignored?

      It's because of a variation on the second one: Our arguments don't come with a fat, plain brown envelope and/or a spoken agreement for a high paying job as soon as you leave office after changing the law to benefit my industry. This is how the world has always been, and we need to be aware of it to fight it.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

    10. Re:Why it will win eventually by Scrameustache · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I never vote in general elections

      Then STFU. If you don't bother with politics, politics will bother you.

      If you can't in good conscience vote for the fuckers who are alternating their turns to screw us, do what I do: Vote for someone you'd like to win, even though they have no real chance. If we all bothered to do so, they would have a chance.

      --

      You can't take the sky from me...

  3. You can do it canada! by arkenian · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Congratz to canada for resisting this so far, and the support from us sorry sods and brethren to the south to do it again. Hopefully if you prove it can be resisted the US will learn hope once more...

  4. please be broad-minded by uniquegeek · · Score: 4, Interesting

    It's going to take more than one party to pass this. So no matter what party your MP belongs to, let them know you are most definitely not amused. And other parties *have* had a hand in this before.

    I've always worried about the ramifications of discouraging people from tinkering, innovation and creative thinking. What happens to a technical creative process go when people are scared of doing something against the law? What does fear to do a creative mind, and what does it mean to our younger generation, and the future of our country?

    So if you care, please inform others about this, and encourage them to follow through on making themselves heard... no matter who their favorites in parliament are.

    (Love Make magazine's motto: void your warranty).

    1. Re:please be broad-minded by crucifer · · Score: 4, Informative

      I contacted my MP, he's in the "Bloc Quebecois" and he assured me that his party was going to second the conservative's motion to pass the bill. So unfortunately, this horrible disaster is going to pass.

    2. Re:please be broad-minded by grelmar · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The current state of the political scene is working against the Conservatives here, so hopefully this will die another death.

      The NDP will vote against this as a matter of policy. Heavy handed copyright just doesn't fit with their philosphy, and they know they would be in deep trouble with their core supporters if they played nice with the Conservatives on this. There really isn't any middle ground for them on this.

      The Grits, in theory, could go either way. They've tried to push through copyright reform when they were in power as well (an failed). But they're lagging in the pols, so I would suspect they'll take the expedient, populist route (in fine Grit tradition) to try and close the gap a bit. Iggy's an academic, and the academic circles are almost universally opposed to this reform, so it would fit with his background to oppose the legislation. It might just be the podium he's been waiting to pound on the get some good press for a change.

      The Bloq... Aww, heck, who knows. I suspect they'll oppose this just for the populist support in Quebec, but you never know. The Bloq is brutally unpredictable when it comes to national policy.

      Overall, I'd say the chance of this passing is 51/49 against. But it's slim. If the Tories make this a confidence vote, it will really put the other parties against the wall, because a snap election works in the Tories' favour at the moment.

    3. Re:please be broad-minded by rtfa-troll · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well how about a) naming him and b) trying to get a protest against him organised some time soon in his constituency? If you leave it as "my MP" then there's nothing anyone can do about it (except call all their own MPs and try to identify who the enemy is).

      --
      =~ s,(.*),<sarcasm>$1</sarcasm>,g if any_point_you_wish();
  5. Re:if it's still there may make for a good court c by Kryptonian+Jor-El · · Score: 4, Funny

    Exactly.

    Judge: Did you or did you not circumvent and redistribute manipulated copies of Iron Man 2?

    Defendant: Yes

    Judge: What do you have to say for yourself?

    Defendant: I bought like, 20 spindles of DVDs last year?

    Judge: Good, Good, carry on

    --
    All your 09 F9 11 02 9D 74 E3 5B D8 41 56 C5 63 56 88 C0 are belong to us
  6. If it failed the first few times... by somenickname · · Score: 2

    If it failed the first few times, just keep trying. Surely we can either slip it by the public or keep trying until they lose steam or we've distracted them with something else. Do whatever it takes to keep the media industry funding our political campaigns.

    Stories like this almost make me physically ill.

  7. Why Anti-Circumvention Sucks by Barrinmw · · Score: 5, Interesting

    In the US, if you have a DVD designed not to play on your computer (you play it in Windows Media Player and it comes up as cannot play due to copyright restriction) and you watch it in VLC, if the Movie Studios found out, they could successfully sue you cause you bypassed DRM.

    1. Re:Why Anti-Circumvention Sucks by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 2, Interesting

      The scary part is if you only ever used VLC (like a lot of people) and just stuck the disk in a ran it, you would effectively be breaking the law without even KNOWING there was a digital lock!

  8. Canadians need to push back... HARDER by erroneus · · Score: 4, Interesting

    If the Canadian people were able to get the previous attempt stopped, then they also have the power to get some things back. Perhaps it is time for the Canadian people to get some copyright and related laws reformed. First should be to get rid of this ridiculous blank media tax scam. If there are uses that do not include copying movies and music, then the law is unjust and unfair. Clearly, it is and needs to be reversed retroactively... copyright groups need to give the money back.

    Why stop at getting a new law blocked? Take it all back.

  9. What happened to the public consultation? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Informative

    They spent a whole year obtaining and then incorporating the results from public consultation into yet another version of the legislation, then they're going to try to shove the same DMCA-style stuff down our throats again, with a minority government no less?

    I don't think so.

    What was the point of public consultation? What the [expletive deleted] are they doing? They can have their stupid anti-circumvention law that increases penalties if they would just do one simple thing: have the law clearly state that if action you are doing is already legal (e.g., "fair dealing"), then the anti-circumvention part of the law doesn't apply.

    [Warms up printer]

    1. Re:What happened to the public consultation? by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 4, Insightful

      I don't think so.

      Forgive me my pessimism, but I do. Public consultations are meant to influence public opinion, not to actually ask the people anything. When the European Constitution was rejected, the politician's reaction was that they "apparently had not explained it enough", not off course that the people were in any way right. For a politician, the people are only right when they elect your party or share your exact point of view, and wrong in any other case.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  10. I am sick of the Conservatives by Phrogman · · Score: 2, Insightful

    sucking Hollywood's cock. They keep trying to ram this shit through, I guess the bribes are still being paid in full.

    I sincerely hope my fellow Canadians wake up and elect anyone other than Harper and his cronies. Anyone would be better, even Ignatieff.

    --
    "The first time I got drunk, I got married. The second time I bought a chimpanzee, after that I stayed sober" Arian Seid
  11. Pirate Party of Canada by Nuitari+The+Wiz · · Score: 4, Informative

    If you want to get politically active, a political party is needed.

    Pirate Party of Canada
    www.pirateparty.ca

    1. Re:Pirate Party of Canada by dkleinsc · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The Pirate Party will NEVER have enough clout to spread it's message. All they will succeed in doing is splitting the vote even more.

      Given the success of the Swedish Pirate Party, with 2 seats in European Parliament and currently the third-largest political party in Sweden, I'd say your pessimism is unjustified. It's taking time, but the Pirates are slowly winning.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  12. I propose a TWO STRIKES rule: by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Any government that proposes the same bullshit twice is out. That should have prevented the European Constitution to be forced down our throats after we rejected it firmly.

    --
    Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
    1. Re:I propose a TWO STRIKES rule: by Errol+backfiring · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Well, governments have a "natural" period that is the time between elections. But I think that is a bit short. My gut feeling is that any any government that tries to force an already rejected bill into law should explain to the judge (in any decent country that has a separation between law-making and law-enforcing powers) why that government wants to abuse its power and tries to circumvent the democracy. Punishable by a verdict that the government in question is not fit to rule.

      --
      Nae king! Nae laird! Nae yurrupiean pressedent! We willna be fooled again!
  13. Re:if it's still there may make for a good court c by DarwinSurvivor · · Score: 2, Informative

    Actually, the blank media tax only covers "music", Movies are apparently not included.

  14. What lobbyist's do by MrKaos · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Watching these laws being tried and re-tried all over the world demonstrates the will of the establishment in action. These legislations are continually presented all over the world and sometimes I wonder how long it will be before they eventually pass into law. They just keep trying over and over until they get what they want and all our freedom gets diminished into an illusion. Democracy is offered as the ultimate parody of that freedom.

    I'm trying hard to remember where I saw a law passed that actually increased our freedoms. It takes a lot of time to read and critique legislation when you do a day job. Whats guiling is there are people out there who are *paid* to lobby for a reduction of freedoms.

    It really brings home Jefferson's wisdom when he said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

    --
    My ism, it's full of beliefs.
    1. Re:What lobbyist's do by metacell · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, sometimes laws are passed which limit the government's freedom, effectively increasing everyone else's.

  15. Badges, We don't need no stinkin badges ! by ControlsGeek · · Score: 2, Funny

    As others have said the establishment lawyers keep bringing back the same old laws hoping to eventually wear out the resistance of the majority who continue to carry on pirating to their hearts content. Civil disobedience is the last refuge of the oppressed majority who eventually will rise throw off the shackles of slavery to the suits.

    Wow I'm sounding like Karl Marx all of a sudden ! Too much coffee maybe, Sorry, I'm Canadian.