Slashdot Mirror
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."
Looks like the citizens of every country are going to have to stay on careful guard these days. When the music industry loses in one country, they just shift focus to another for a while (then later try to sneak back in under the radar where they lost). I guess they're hoping they have the money to wait everyone out. Sadly, they may be right.
Couldn't someone start a rumor that this bill is anti-French? At least that would get Quebec to come out against it. Of course, that's a pretty dubious ally. But you take what you can get.
SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
Can we link to Michael Geist's actual article rather than that horrid looking ActivePolitic website?
Original
"We" voted the fundamentalist Conservative party into majority last year. Probably the ONLY reason bad laws weren't passed the last five years is they'd been kept in check with a minority. Infallible? Canada? Hah!
There's no stopping this crap bill or ACTA this time. The next federal election is 3 years away, people will have forgotten this by then (assuming they haven't been locked up in the new mega-prisons thanks to an massive crime and punishment bill that even Texas Republicans said was unworkable, having tried the same thing themselves and failed miserably).
You can't FORCE people to buy your product. You need to make your product desirable to buy!
Half the industry in any sector is doing this now. We're tired of being ripped off by paying to watch crappy movies, buy an entire CD when only one song is good, buy a video game to play it for five minutes then realize it sucks and so fourth. Demos are virtually gone, trailers are misleading, prices are higher out here for everything.
There have been movies streamed off the net I've watched. I was bored and had nothing to do. You assume I would buy it, some of these movies are TERRIBLE and I would have never bought it in the first place. I'd just find something else to do. You keep assuming any person who ever watched or listened to your content would have immediately bought it giving you $$$. You're wrong, so wrong.
I've played video games before buying them, like Mass Effect. After that I immediately bought it, and the second one as soon as it came out, and will immediately buy the 3rd as soon as it comes out too. That's because it was a quality product and I loved it.
I did the same thing with Starcraft 2, played it at a friends, loved it, bought it. I didn't buy it at release because I wasn't sure if I'd enjoy it.
I still haven't purchased SWTOR because I don't know if it's that good, I saw a few videos, haven't played it. For the cost versus time playing it, not worth it to me right now.
If I could play the first few levels to try it out and see if I like it, I might buy it. I work for my bloody money and I'm tired of every single person thinking their product is so good that they deserve some of my money!
So many artists would be ignored, people would not buy their music, or listen to it that much, watch movies by directors, go out to theater, recommend it to other people if the restrictions where always 100% you have to get some of my money before I get to know if it's worth it.
People would just do other things more and spend less time with digital media.
Actually, this could be doing society a FAVOR, we'll stop giving as much money to these corporations, spend more time at bars socializing or going to events.
Then we'd spend less money on huge TV's since we use it less, less on hard drives to store media, less on monitors.
I'm not saying it'd kill the industry, but they have this magic preconception that suddenly sales would super boom. They forget that people are strangled by high rents, gas prices and low wage jobs and that's a big chunk of why their crap isn't selling.
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.
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Breaking any type of "digital" lock on something, whether copyrighted or not, without the owners permission under Canadian law is illegal.
Please cite the law as I will cite the a judgment CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13 :
...
Under s. 29 of the Copyright Act, fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright. “Research” must be given a large and liberal interpretation in order to ensure that users’ rights are not unduly constrained, and is not limited to non-commercial or private contexts. Lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research within the meaning of s. 29. The following factors help determine whether a dealing is fair: the purpose of the dealing, the character of the dealing, the amount of the dealing, the nature of the work, available alternatives to the dealing, and the effect of the dealing on the work. Here, the Law Society’s dealings with the publishers’ works through its custom photocopy service were research-based and fair. The access policy places appropriate limits on the type of copying that the Law Society will do. If a request does not appear to be for the purpose of research, criticism, review or private study, the copy will not be made. If a question arises as to whether the stated purpose is legitimate, the reference librarian will review the matter. The access policy limits the amount of work that will be copied, and the reference librarian reviews requests that exceed what might typically be considered reasonable and has the right to refuse to fulfill a request.
The Law Society did not authorize copyright infringement by providing selfservice photocopiers for use by its patrons in the Great Library. While authorization can be inferred from acts that are less than direct and positive, a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright. Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law. This presumption may be rebutted if it is shown that a certain relationship or degree of control existed between the alleged authorizer and the persons who committed the copyright infringement. Here, there was no evidence that the copiers had been used in a manner that was not consistent with copyright law. Moreover, the Law Society’s posting of a notice warning that it will not be responsible for any copies made in infringement of copyright does not constitute an express acknowledgement that the copiers will be used in an illegal manner. Finally, even if there were evidence of the copiers having been used to infringe copyright, the Law Society lacks sufficient control over the Great Library’s patrons to permit the conclusion that it sanctioned, approved or countenanced the infringement. ...
also there is another case in the lower court that used that judgment to allow personal backup so please cite the law you refer to
Jehovah be praised, Oracle was not selected