The Canadian DMCA Battle Concludes: How Thousands of Canadians Changed Copyright

An anonymous reader writes "Nearly 15 years of debate over digital copyright reform will come to an end today as Bill C-11, the fourth legislative attempt at Canadian copyright reform, passes in the House of Commons. Many participants in the copyright debate view the bill with great disappointment, pointing to the government's decision to adopt restrictive digital lock rules as a signal that their views were ignored. Despite the loss on digital locks, the "Canadian copyright" led to some dramatic changes to Canadian copyright with some important wins for Canadians who spoke out on copyright. The government expanded fair dealing and added provisions on time shifting, format shifting, backup copies, and user generated content in response to public pressure. It also included a cap on statutory damages, expanded education exceptions, and rejected SOPA-style amendments."

Comments

The digital lock provisions trump everything else

[crazyjj]

What good do all those "time shifting, format shifting, backup copies" exemptions do when the digital lock provisions make them all completely illegal anyway? Sure, you can backup and format shift your DVD's, just as long as you don't break the CSS encryption to do so. In other words, it's illegal to format shift or backup your DVD's/Blu-rays/etc.

I mean, let's face it. No one gives a shit about format-shifting or backing up their own home videos. The whole point of format shifting is to move COMMERCIAL material from my physical DVD/Blu-ray to my computer.

Canadians must have a very different definition of "important wins" than us Americans. This is nothing less than a complete and outright victory for Hollywood and the media powers.

Inevitable

[Anrego]

But still sucks.

This is largely the problem with law. You can just keep on trying, until the public runs out of energy fighting it or it succeeds by fluke. If this hadn’t passed we’d be reading stores about the 5’th attempt, then the 6’th. In a weird way I’m glad it’s finally over.

And the digital locks thing sucks big time. I mean practically speaking, I’d still feel safe ripping a DVD at home it’s the guys writing the software that enables me to do this that are going to be hit. Just in principle it annoys me that it is no longer legal in many cases for me to make backups (or realistically make copies and keep the original media as backup) of media I purchased.

It’s infuriating, because I buy media to rip it onto my computer where I ultimately watch/listen to it. I do this despite it being considerably _less_ convenient then downloading it for _free_ because despite my hatred of big media, I still don’t think it entitles me to just grab their stuff for free. I (figuratively) have money, sitting in my pocket, that I would happily spend on high quality DRM free downloads if anyone would offer them to me. They don’t. So I do it the hard way.. and now they are making that somewhat illegal, in some pretend effort to prevent me from going the absolute easiest and quickest route (just downloading the damn thing) .. which is exactly what it will drive me to! I still don't feel I am somehow entitled to media on my terms.. but I've just stopped caring.

Re:Inevitable

[__aaeihw9960]

It’s infuriating, because I buy media to rip it onto my computer where I ultimately watch/listen to it. I do this despite it being considerably _less_ convenient then downloading it for _free_ because despite my hatred of big media, I still don’t think it entitles me to just grab their stuff for free. I (figuratively) have money, sitting in my pocket, that I would happily spend on high quality DRM free downloads if anyone would offer them to me. They don’t. So I do it the hard way.. and now they are making that somewhat illegal, in some pretend effort to prevent me from going the absolute easiest and quickest route (just downloading the damn thing) .. which is exactly what it will drive me to! I still don't feel I am somehow entitled to media on my terms.. but I've just stopped caring.

And this sentiment exactly is how these companies/countries can justify anti-piracy measures. It becomes, "Look, look, they're pirating this, we have to lock down our material more to make it stop."

I'm not sure if it's a vicious cycle, or just a circlejerk. But it's definitely one of the two.

I'm in the same boat as you - I buy it, and then either rip it or download it, just to appease my conscience. I purchased a DRM free game about a week ago - the download folder contained an .exe file. I was actually hesitant to move the file. Do you know how long it's been since I've seen a file that was easily portable, and contained every piece of the game? That's F***ed up.

Re:Inevitable

[crazyjj]

What makes you think it's over?

Re:Inevitable

[Anonymous Coward]

The vicious cycle is not between big media and the pirates.

The cycle is between the big media and their customers suffering from battered wife syndrome, such as people like you and the GP/OP.

People like you and the GP keep paying them money, so they can keep on existing, doing what they want to do, and what they want is DRM

If you don't like DRM, simply don't buy it. Do not give them the privilege of your money. Whether you pirate it or not afterward is irrelevant. The bottom line is... the bottom line. Hit them where it hurts.

They're not going to magically turn around if you keep paying them money.

Re:Inevitable

[evorster]

Well, maybe not.
I recently read that Europe knocked down some sneaky lobbying, and made some laws to the opposite effect than what the lobby group wanted... I think it had something to do with the IP ratchet of trying to force SOPA on the European populace, or something.

So, if you push back hard enough, there might some enterprising politican that decides that staying in power longer will be more profitable than taking a quick bribe, you might get laws banning some of the more horrible abuses you are seeing these days.

However, just giving up and calling things inevitable is the only sure way for your opposition to succeed.

Re:Inevitable

[dgatwood]

No, it's more like a power-hungry politician's wife putting up with her husband's affairs. There are very real and tangible benefits to paying them money—you get to watch their stuff—and the level of abuse is relatively small compared to the benefit. The people who legitimately need to make copies of the content ignore the law, knowing full well that there is unlikely to be any attempt to prosecute them for doing so, and that it would be an ideal opportunity for the defense lawyer to mention jury nullification during his/her closing statement even if it ever made it to trial. The people who just want free stuff either buy legitimate copies or ignore the law and take their risks.

The big problem with your proposed solution is that you're speaking from the perspective of the one half of one percent who actually care about putting movies on a media server. Even if every single person with those needs stopped buying media today, it would not cause enough of a change in big media's profits for them to notice.

No, there is exactly one solution to the problem of DRM, and it is this: compete. Don't like DRM? Create your own movie studio and then don't do that. Tell people that you don't do it, and tell them why. Convince the general public that your DRM-free offering is better than the abusive alternatives. When the existing media houses notice that you're starting to cut into their bottom line significantly, then they'll be forced to adjust their behavior to match it, and content will become more user-friendly. Until there is a legal alternative, however, it doesn't matter whether you're right about DRM being harmful; most of the general public won't be willing to pirate content just to make a point.

Remember: voting with your dollars might make a small difference; voting with other people's dollars will make a big difference.

Re:Inevitable

[shoehornjob]

The vicious cycle is not between big media and the pirates. The cycle is between the big media and their customers suffering from battered wife syndrome, such as people like you and the GP/OP. People like you and the GP keep paying them money, so they can keep on existing, doing what they want to do, and what they want is DRM If you don't like DRM, simply don't buy it. Do not give them the privilege of your money. Whether you pirate it or not afterward is irrelevant. The bottom line is... the bottom line. Hit them where it hurts.

That pretty much says it all right there. What this really comes down to is a lifestyle change. I'm willing to give up on certain kinds of media if I can't get it on my terms. Plain and simple.

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[dyingtolive]

Yeah, but they ONLY lost that much. That's a victory in and of itself right? Right?

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[TheRaven64]

It depends on the enforcement and wording. For example, the DMCA only protects 'effective' countermeasures. One argument that has been made is that any countermeasure that has been compromised is no longer effective, which would mean that the act of breaking DRM would demonstrate that it was not effective and therefore not protected by the DMCA. If the Canadian version has similar wording and courts uphold this interpretation, then it's a win...

Summary is not anonymous

[BForrester]

At least give attribution to the summary, lifted in its entirety from Michael Geist's blog:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6544/125/

The original post also gives a great breakdown of the specific policies that will change under this new legislation.

Nice to have clarity

[canajin56]

Last week my wife wanted an eBook, but it wasn't available through Amazon. She bought it through Kobo, then removed the Kobo DRM and converted it to a .mobi and put it on her Kindle. It's nice to know that this is now legal format shifting and also illegal lock breaking. What a relief it is to have that kind of clarity. It's nice to know that the Harper government considers this acceptable because "It's unlikely that copyright holders would consider it worthwhile to sue individual violators". This makes me feel so safe. At least it's still just a civil violation, not a 10 year felony ;) It's still absolutely insane that Harper would defend the bill as "we won't enforce it so why worry?"

Re:Nice to have clarity

[Nerdfest]

I called my MP directly in advance of this bill and told him that I will not vote for a party that passes a law that makes me a criminal when I view a piece of media that I've paid for.

Re:Nice to have clarity

[mark-t]

Actually, format shifting any digitally locked work without consent of the copyright holder will be illegal under C-11. It doesn't matter whether or not the fair dealing provision should apply, because the fair dealing provisions explicitly exclude any case where the work was subject to a "technological protection measure".

This is why the so-called expanded fair dealing provisions in the bill are laughable... they are entirely revocable at the discretion of the content provider who can choose to use a digital lock.

The conservatives have stated that they don't expect to hold individuals accountable for "privately" breaking any digital locks, but that's only because trying to enforce it at that level would be virtually impossible without an enormous change in the privacy laws in Canada.

On the other hand, this bill effectively makes the Canadian blank media levy a completely illegal tax... since it exists to compensate artists for private use copying, but under C-11, with its digital lock provisions prohibiting decryption of any work without permission, any otherwise existing provision that might allow somebody to private copy a digital work is rendered all but completely moot. For what it's worth, it's the Conservative's intent to scrap this levy.

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[Scott64]

When this argument was brought up during the last attempt to pass this legislation, it was said that "effective" doesn't necessarily mean that it "works well" in this context, just that protection is "in effect" (no matter how ineffective the protection actually is). IANAL, but I believe that distinction was made by one and if I had any clue where I read that, I'd link to it.

Not sure about Canadian law...

[Anonymous Coward]

But here in the states with the limits on copyright duration, I don't know why the Supreme Court hasn't ruled DMCA and digital locks unconstitutional as it extends copyright to infinity. There are no provisions for placing all encryption keys into an escrow account to be released to the public on xyz date.
There are no provisions in the encryption methodology to turn off encryption after xyz date.

Current encryption methods used on all DVD and Blu-Ray devices are illegal due to how they extend copyright (based on DMCA or DMCA type laws).

Re:Not sure about Canadian law...

[TheSpoom]

I'm sorry, are you contributing multiple millions of dollars to reelection campaigns? No? Then you don't exist.

Win for Canadians... Sort of.

[twnth]

A win or a loss, depending upon your perspective. Appropriate for the 200th anniversary of the declaration of the War of 1812.

Use to protect communications?

[RecoveredMarketroid]

A thought off the top of my head... Can the digital lock provisions be used to protect personal communications? People are very worried about eavesdropping/profiling of their online activity-- wouldn't applying a 'digital lock' of even a trivial sort make place the eavesdroppers outside the law?

Obviously, strong encryption can protect your communications. But this is potentially something different-- you aren't guaranteeing the security of your communication, but rather, shifting the legal burden of violation onto some of the parties who sought to create the law in the first place...

For example, what if your bittorrent tracker information is protected by a digital lock?

Re:Use to protect communications?

[mark-t]

Actually, the bill does contain explicit exemptions to its digital locks provisions for the specific purposes of both law enforcement and computer/network security. If you can make a valid case that your decrypting somebody else's lock falls in one of those categories, you're fine.

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[Anonymous Coward]

Here is the direct link to the bill. It is in lawyer / legislative speak, but (as you alluded to) says nothing about effective.

Media companies

[ciderbrew]

I'm not too sure if people for "Media" read this; but here it goes.

Dear Crap Mongers
I've stopped downloading, no longer bother with cinema and haven't had a TV for well over a year. It's going well and I hope you go out of business. There is really so much more to be doing than watching the bland stuff you produce. (Live open mic comedy is fantastic in London).
Life without a constant barrage of marketing is really nice too.
Your's
Some bloke...

If I can't watch it on iplayer(BBC) - It's not worth the bother - I've really missed nothing of worth have I.

Re:content lost, these are dinosaur death throes

[RNelson]

There was an Ask Slashdot thread on this a couple of months ago with various suggestions from people.

Cold Turkey

[ThatsNotPudding]

Or you could, you know, stop watching/listening to all this stuff (even for 'free') and tell the content creators explicitly why you won't be bothering with their works until *they* are willing to cut out the Content Lords and deal with their fans directly in an honest and fair (affordable and DRM-free) manner. And if they won't (due to greed) why would you want to pay them or even pay attention to them anyway? Even copying their stuff helps keep a corrupt, democratically corrosive system going.

And if we cannot truly go without the luxury of entertainment (to keep us distracted from contemplating how empty and meaningless our lives are or some peer pressure 'did you see...' BS), then we have to take the first step and admit we're nothing but an addict.

Re:They're idiots

[Anonymous Coward]

Freakin' morons!!!

They're not morons. They're con-men. They're providing wonderful representation to their real constituents, who definitely aren't your average Canadian citizen.

Fighting Piracy?

[Anonymous Coward]

So they are going to fight piracy by making a law that will make legitimate sources (music, video, etc...) MORE restrictive?

Solution: Don't buy media with locks on them.

Is it just me or is the result going to be different than what the people that wrote that thought it was going to be?

I mean if I legally buy something, and to make it useful to me I have to defeat a lock, which makes me a criminal anyway, why do I bother spending ANY money on legitimate services, which I might as well just skip the middle man, and pirate media directly? I mean sure perhaps I'm a criminal, but at least I wouldn't be paying to be one.

Re:Much more solid way of removing that

[Samalie]

I'm afraid you're entirely incorrect in regards to the Canadian legislation.

As it is worded, you have the right to timeshift, formatshift, etc to your heart's content UNLESS there is a digital lock on the original.

IF there is a digital lock of ANY sort, you still technically have the right to timeshift, format shoft, etc, but in order to do so you will have to commit an illegal act to do so (circumventing the digital lock).

Now, IANAL, but as far as I can tell, there is nothing wrong with legitimately purchasing media and then downloading a DRM-free copy from torrent_site_01...in that case, YOU are not (personally) circumventing the digital lock.

Re:The digital lock provisions trump everything el

[anethema]

It does:

“technological protection measure” means any effective technology, device or component that, in the ordinary course of its operation,

(a) controls access to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording and whose use is authorized by the copyright owner; or

(b) restricts the doing — with respect to a work, to a performer’s performance fixed in a sound recording or to a sound recording — of any act referred to in section 3, 15 or 18 and any act for which remuneration is payable under section 19.