"Canadian DMCA" Rising From the Dead

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.

Comments

I wonder if they will cut the tax...

[mlawrence]

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?

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax...

[cosm]

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.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax...

[mark-t]

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.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax...

[mark-t]

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).

Why it will win eventually

[RandomFactor]

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

Re:Why it will win eventually

[bmo]

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

--
BMO

Re:Why it will win eventually

[rtfa-troll]

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.

Re:Why it will win eventually

[jimicus]

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.

Re:Why it will win eventually

[somersault]

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..

Re:Why it will win eventually

[Znork]

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.

Re:Why it will win eventually

[metacell]

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.

please be broad-minded

[uniquegeek]

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).

Re:please be broad-minded

[crucifer]

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.

Re:please be broad-minded

[grelmar]

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.

Re:if it's still there may make for a good court c

[Kryptonian Jor-El]

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

Why Anti-Circumvention Sucks

[Barrinmw]

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.

Canadians need to push back... HARDER

[erroneus]

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.

What happened to the public consultation?

[Anonymous Coward]

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]

Re:What happened to the public consultation?

[Errol backfiring]

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.

Pirate Party of Canada

[Nuitari The Wiz]

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

Pirate Party of Canada
www.pirateparty.ca

Re:Pirate Party of Canada

[dkleinsc]

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.

Re:I propose a TWO STRIKES rule:

[Errol backfiring]

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.