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.

6 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. 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 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
    2. 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.

  3. 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.