Canadian SOPA Could Target YouTube

bs0d3 writes "The music industry is seeking over a dozen changes to Canadian anti-piracy bill C-11, including website blocking, Internet termination for alleged repeat infringers, and an expansion of the "enabler" provision that is supposedly designed to target pirate sites. Meanwhile, the Entertainment Software Association of Canada also wants an expansion of the enabler provision along with further tightening of the already-restrictive digital lock rules. It's concerning that some of these expansions will create a risky situation for legitimate websites, as SOPA did in the U.S. Michael Geist outlines the legal history and complications here."

Comments

we need a tech star chamber

[Thud457]

Apple, Google, Microsoft, IBM, HP, Toshiba, Samsung and Comcast should just create a consortium.
The purpose of this consortium would be to buy up the media companies and put a bullet in their head .
It's time we stopped the tail from wagging the dog here. It's just good business.

C-11 is NOTHING like SOPA, and milder then DMCA

[JimCanuck]

Please, C-11 does nothing of the sort.

C-11 is really just renaming some things in the original copyright acts, doesn't change the fact you must go to court to prove your case before having someone's website pulled, charged or anything.

It adds a bunch of non-specifics about the WIPO Copyright Treaty (WCT in the law), that we signed and never actually changed our copyrights to agree with. Its you know only been 10 years since the Liberals signed it and had not done anything about it Federally.

Also, most of the law, is worded to match that agreement, especially relating to internet sharing, however, the law was written not targeting the "service providers" and "users" as the agreement was originally signed and the American's adopted it as the DMCA, it actually appears to only target the people who are hosting/running the services. Which is following the spirit of the Supreme Court ruling about P2P file sharing being legal, as long as your not advertising, or benefiting through the copyright infringement financially.

Which seems to be why they added this part:

(2.4) In determining whether a person has infringed copyright under subsection (2.3), the court may consider

(a) whether the person expressly or implicitly marketed or promoted the service as one that could be used to enable acts of copyright infringement;

(b) whether the person had knowledge that the service was used to enable a significant number of acts of copyright infringement;

(c) whether the service has significant uses other than to enable acts of copyright infringement;

(d) the person’s ability, as part of providing the service, to limit acts of copyright infringement, and any action taken by the person to do so;

(e) any benefits the person received as a result of enabling the acts of copyright infringement; and

(f) the economic viability of the provision of the service if it were not used to enable acts of copyright infringement.

It is all about whether your providing a "service" to aid in copyright infridgement. Not actually the users. MegaUpload = No good, Torrents/Gnutella shared among peoples personal computers = okay still.

Re:C-11 is NOTHING like SOPA, and milder then DMCA

[mark-t]

C11 contains explicit exemptions to copyright infringement under a "fair dealings" guideline, but simultaneously effectively revokes all of those exemptions if or whenever the work in question has any form of digital lock. It has absolutely no fair use exemptions to circumventing digital locks. You can be breaking the law under C-11 even without violating copyright! C11 is *FAR* more restrictive than the DMCA, which contains fair use exemptions to its provisions.