Canadian DOJ Warned About Unconstitutionality of Copyright Digital Lock Rules

An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian House of Commons may have passed the Canadian DMCA, but the constitutional concerns with the copyright bill and its digital lock rules will likely linger for years. Michael Geist has obtained internal government documents that indicate that the Department of Justice issued a legal opinion warning about the potential for constitutional violations. The DOJ legal opinion warned of the need to link circumvention with copyright infringement and of the particular danger of not providing the blind with an exception. The Canadian law misses the mark on both counts with no link to infringement and an exception that blind groups say is 'nullified' by strict conditions."

Comments

Dear Canada:

[KingSkippus]

Dear Canada: (an open letter)

As an American citizen, I know how bullying our government and corporations can be. Believe me, I am not any more happy about it than you are, and as a citizen with the power to vote, I really am diligently trying to change it from inside.

That having been said, if you want to seriously stop being thought of as the 51st state (but a bit colder), there's going to have to come a time when you simply look the U.S. Department of Justice, the RIAA, and any other organization or company trying to steamroll you into making you more like us in the eye and say, "No." It's okay, really! Those of us who hate certain aspects of our government would actually cheer you on, and it might actually effect some change here when our government and citizens realize how ridiculous some of these demands are.

Wishing you all the best,
King Skippus

Re:Dear Canada:

[KingSkippus]

Of course, re-reading the summary, I am now thinking that it is referring to the Canadian Department of Justice, not the U.S. one. Sorry, but really, my post still applies since I'm pretty sure all of this has come about due to the influence of the RIAA/MPAA. This whole mess could have been avoided if Canada had stood up for its independence back when its version of the DMCA was passed by the House of Commons.

To be honest, I was a bit confused why our Department of Justice would be sending love letters to Canadian courts...

Re:Dear Canada:

[Anonymous Coward]

Hello Skippus,

Those of us with our head above ground are trying to fight the good fight, really we are, but we're currently experiencing "technical difficulty" with a quisling government that somehow bamboozled enough of the other ostriches into voting for them...or at least enough so that trickery tipped the scales juuuuust enough.

Please stay tuned...

Re:Dear Canada:

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Canadian, thank you for your support. I too feel our Government has become a puppet of US (both Government and corporations). But then again I remember back to the mid 80's, when I really started paying attention to politics, and Brian Mulroney was really only a puppet of then Ronald Reagan. So really nothing has changed. Can it change? Sure anything is possible. Will it change? Probably not.

We'll keep trying to change our ways. Thanks again for your support of the 51st state. We're not just a road to Alaska!

AC

Re:Dear Canada:

[denis-The-menace]

We the Sheeple of Canada (Baaah),

Are much too polite to complain about our coming incarceration for doing what we do everyday, today.

Only once our hockey and favourite coffee are illegal will we rise from our couches and build pitch forks and torches, only to wonder what to do with them.

Until then, there's a Kardashian spectacle on TV...
(Baaahhh!)

Re:Dear Canada:

[sl4shd0rk]

I know how bullying our government and corporations can be.

You ain't seen nothing yet.
- Mitt

Re:Dear Canada:

[digitig]

That having been said, if you want to seriously stop being thought of as the 51st state (but a bit colder)

Colder than Alaska? I'd call it a tie.

Re:Dear Canada:

[future assassin]

Dear American,

Our government doesn't give a flying fuck, the papers don't really report on news like this and no one is willing to push back. So here we are getting fucked in the ass. Which is really strange as Canada is built on immigration and the same people who escaped their corrupt gov don't seem to really want to to anything about our sovereignty being invaded by US interests.

You see its easier for the US to go after countries like Canada one by one as we are alone unlike the EU countries where they can band together and stay off the invasion.

Regards,
The guy who is building his stash of guns.

Re:Dear Canada:

[X0563511]

Maybe I'm misreading here, but it seems that the Department of Justice (of Canada?) is taking the rational side here. Did I read this wrong?

Re:Dear Canada:

[Anonymous Coward]

Only once our hockey and favourite coffee are illegal will we rise from our couches

Chesterfields, man, chesterfields!

Re:Dear Canada:

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for the advice, but we, the citizens of Canada, have already made it clear -- repeatedly -- to our government that we really, really don't want this kind of crap and that they shouldn't bow to the demands of US corporate interests. Unfortunately, our current government managed to acquire a majority position (*cough* voting irregularities *cough*) so are in a position to not give a rat's ass what the citizenry want.

Re:Dear Canada:

[davecb]

To get into the trade "club", we have to give things up that we consider inalienable. Rock, meet hard place.

As the government of the day is more concerned with trade and less with issues of care/harm, they chose the rock.

A wise government would chose neither, but instead move the subject sideways to a place where both trade and rights are honoured. For example, they could honour DRM only if the company held a Canadian copyright, and agreed to make excerpts available, for a nominal fee, whenever the use was legal in Canada.

For an example of a seriously wise move, have look at Politicians need courage to dismantle supply management by Martha Hall Findlay

--dave
ps: Martha is my former MP

Re:Dear Canada:

[Mashiki]

Hockey and the internet are the only thing people in Canada really care about. Maybe poutine, if they're in the mood for it. I kid, though you seem to forget that "Canadians" shut down the country in 1981 over wage and price controls instituted by the-then liberals(Whoo Trudeau) in power. If you think that we're still too polite to "sit back and not complain" then you know far too little about our own history. Let's not forget either more recently that we've managed to buckle various government agencies on other things as well. Including the levy, various CRTC proposals which would have made the country an internet back-water. What you missed the part where the federal government itself got involved?

Hey let's not forget either that our SCC actually will listen to "citizens arguments" via letter. It's free, you just need to address it like your MP or MPP and drop it right in the mailbox. Canada post will deliver it free of charge.

Re:Dear Canada:

[Beardo the Bearded]

Skippus, the current government we have up here was elected by fraudulent means.

They're actively blocking the investigation into voter oppression with the line "They should have filed the complaint before they found out about the fraud!" The head investigator into the biggest case of voter oppression had his budget cut by seven million dollars and was forced into early retirement last week. A recent court decision found that fraudulent votes for a CPC candidate were greater than the difference, forcing a by-election.

Several senior members of the government are under investigation for election fraud, including the head of the Ethics Committee.

The party has plead guilty to breaking election law in the last three elections, and responded by appointing those that did the fraud into Senate positions. (Our senate is appointed for life!)

The 80% of us that did NOT vote for the current bag of asshats are waiting patiently for the investigations to conclude. Stewie's lucky it's not the US or he'd be leaving Parliament Hill in a custom-fitted pine suit.

I am mad enough to riot and drag people bodily from the Hill.

Re:Dear Canada:

[steelfood]

Unfortunately, what you're not seeing is that there's a huge "content" industry in Canada. American production companies like to go to Canada to make their films. Said production companies would threaten to leave if they didn't get their way.

What the Canadian government doesn't see is that these companies don't really have anywhere else to go.

Re:Dear Canada:

[Anonymous Coward]

Does this mean that you will get a refund on the blank media taxes? I'm guessing probably not.

Re:Dear Canada:

[tiegs]

I kid, though you seem to forget that "Canadians" shut down the country in 1981 over wage and price controls instituted by the-then liberals(Whoo Trudeau) in power

What are you talking about? Wage and Price Controls were from 1975 to 1978, long over by 1981. And Canadians did a lot of bitching and moaning during that time, but they sure did not "shut down the country." The Trudeau government implemented the controls for three years, just like they planned from the start. The controversy did not make the government change its course.

Re:Dear Canada:

[Anonymous Coward]

Skippus, the current government we have up here was elected by fraudulent means.

They're actively blocking the investigation into voter oppression with the line "They should have filed the complaint before they found out about the fraud!" The head investigator into the biggest case of voter oppression had his budget cut by seven million dollars and was forced into early retirement last week. A recent court decision found that fraudulent votes for a CPC candidate were greater than the difference, forcing a by-election.

Several senior members of the government are under investigation for election fraud, including the head of the Ethics Committee.

The party has plead guilty to breaking election law in the last three elections, and responded by appointing those that did the fraud into Senate positions. (Our senate is appointed for life!)

That sounds to me like a coup happened. A silent coup. Like Quebec's Quiet Revolution, but malevolent.

The 80% of us that did NOT vote for the current bag of asshats are waiting patiently for the investigations to conclude.

Far too patiently, if you ask me. Far too patiently...

Stewie's lucky it's not the US or he'd be leaving Parliament Hill in a custom-fitted pine suit.

I am mad enough to riot and drag people bodily from the Hill.

I like that image: custom-fitted pine suit. And, as for dragging people from the Hill -- when are "the troops" going to do what they do in tin-pot dictatorships and throw the government out (or in prison) and force new elections? That would be the ultimate (and most delicious) irony: the troops imprisoning "support out troops" Harper.

And it's insightful - we're precariously close to the 4th box to use in defense of liberty (1: soap box, 2: ballot box, 3: jury box, 4: ammo box).

Posting anon to preserve mod points (Maow).

Re:Dear Canada:

[mcneely.mike]

No thanks, dere Buddy whas your name, I don't smoke!

Re:Dear Canada:

[Anonymous Coward]

Stewie's lucky it's not the US or he'd be leaving Parliament Hill in a custom-fitted pine suit.

Don't be too sure of that: GW Bush & Dick Cheney made it through 2 terms without any real threats to their well-being. And the first term came about through serious vote-counting issues.

However, Clinton & Obama have both had shots fired at the White House whilst in power.

I am mad enough to riot and drag people bodily from the Hill.

I wish I heard more people expressing such sentiments...

(Maow again, posting anon.)

Re:Dear Canada:

[Anonymous Coward]

> I am mad enough to riot and drag people bodily from the Hill.

I doubt it, since you aren't currently doing that. ...which is exactly what politicians on both sides of the border hope for: Whine and bitch yourself blue in the keyboard, but in the end, do absolutely nothing. Even with all that Occupy business (remember that?) nothing's changed.

Re:Dear Canada:

[Anonymous Coward]

I agree with you, I think what is NEEDED is for some politicians to leave Parliament hill in that suit you spoke of. Ultimately you can try and avoid the bully which is what Canadians have done so far, But eventually you have to confront them or be under their boot forever. I think i will happen, Im not advocating it, nor suggesting i would do it myself, But its going to happen.
The thing that really worries me is, Canadians are klind of like that shy kid who puts up with the schoolyard bullying for years, until they finally loose it and bezerk the fuck out of said bully.
I think it will start(is starting) with the students, and will be quickly lead/taken over by the gen X/Y/Z's who have been waiting for years, for their F$%King parents gen to die off and let us run the world for a change. which will be opposed by any Boomer who is middle class and up, Who have had the free ride their entire lives, and wont give it up now, even if it means imprisoning their own kids.
They know they f&*ked things up, they know when our generations figure out the generational ponzi scheme they have been running, we will be out for blood. That's what Omnibus bill, C-11, 30 etc are all about. making sure the kids dont figure it out, take over and send them all to the gas chambers. they have power/money and control on their side, we have youth, ingenuity and time on ours.

Re:Dear Canada:

[Em Adespoton]

Well, it has changed; back when Mulroney was in power, he actually got a Majority vote to push US policies through parliament.... Harper has somehiow managed to roll a majority government with the majority of voters voting against him. Part of his platform was that he would push US policies through parliament... and the country said "no". Now we have to ask him to change the voting laws in order to get him out of power.

Good thing the Green Party is gaining popularity and skill.... although next election I think we need a coalition party called "Not the conservative party" where members can vote however they want once their seats are established.

Re:Dear Canada:

[J Story]

I think it's nice that you folks in Canada still have a Constitution. Since the Americans liberals declared ours a "living document" and then declared that we have moved past it, we are a ship without a rudder. The Congress, President and Supreme Court pretty much do as they please like the Prez giving amnesty via executive order.

Interestingly, Canada's Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which comprises a part of its written Consititution, has a so-called "notwithstanding clause", which allows Charter protections to be over-ridden temporarily. As far as I know, the notwithstanding clause is currently only used by Quebec for its French-only language laws. Although the clause had been briefly invoked once in Alberta during the period that Canada was moving to allow same-sex marriage, it seems that the clause has never been invoked by the federal government. My guess as to why is that there is a serious political price to pay, and at the federal level the competition between parties is intense.

Re:Dear Canada:

[Anonymous Coward]

Harper has somehiow managed to roll a majority government with the majority of voters voting against him.

Actually, given Canada’s first-past-the-post electoral system, combined with having multiple parties with significant voter support, most (all?) of Canada’s federal majority governments have been formed with less than a majority of the popular vote, sometimes as little as one third of the total vote.

I seem to recall that Harper’s current government is at or close to the record for a majority government with the lowest popular vote. When you take into account the number of people who didn’t bother to vote, Harper got less than one quarter of all potential votes.

Re:Dear Canada:

[J Story]

Dear American,

Our government doesn't give a flying fuck, the papers don't really report on news like this and no one is willing to push back. So here we are getting fucked in the ass. Which is really strange as Canada is built on immigration and the same people who escaped their corrupt gov don't seem to really want to to anything about our sovereignty being invaded by US interests.

You see its easier for the US to go after countries like Canada one by one as we are alone unlike the EU countries where they can band together and stay off the invasion.

Regards,
The guy who is building his stash of guns.

I doubt that the Liberals, if they were the governing party now, would be doing much different. Canada's interest in diversifying trade with countries other than the US did not begin with the current Conservative government, but has gone back decades. The stark fact, however, is that geography and our common heritage mean that the US is destined to always be Canada's primary trading partner. As a result, Canada often has little choice but to accommodate the ravings that come from Washington/Hollywood. In this particular case, it may be that Canada's Supreme Court will dull some of the sharper edges.

Re:Dear Canada:

[J Story]

To get into the trade "club", we have to give things up that we consider inalienable. Rock, meet hard place.

...

For an example of a seriously wise move, have look at Politicians need courage to dismantle supply management by Martha Hall Findlay

I had taken this argument by Ms. Findlay (a former Liberal Member of Parliament) as "permission" of sorts for the current governing Conservative party to use dairy supply management as a bargaining chip in trade talks. She has apparently expressed interest in becoming leader of the Liberal party, and if she tries and succeeds, she will be able to beat up the Conservatives on the details of trade concessions, but not on the broad concept.

Re:Dear Canada:

[CCarrot]

No thanks, dere Buddy whas your name, I don't smoke!

I think 'e was th' other fellah... :)

Re:Dear Canada:

[Anonymous Coward]

If you are looking for a Prime Minister that does not cave to foreign influence, elect a Québécois.

Re:Dear Canada:

[Have Brain Will Rent]

"Skippus, the current government we have up here was elected by fraudulent means."

Great headline, if only it were true.

For the sake of argument let's say the claims (and that is all they are) turned out to be true. How many fewer seats would the government have? Enough that it wouldn't have formed the government? No.

Your guys lost. It happens. Get over it.

Re:Dear Canada:

[davecb]

In fact, she proposes that supply management, supported by her own party, is badly broken and needs to be fixed. One of the side-effects was to cause massive consolidation in the industry, displacing individual farmers. A second was to make Canada look like it wasn't playing fair in international trade, her area of expertise. A third was to drive up the cost of milk.

The PR benefits, alas, go the the government of the day. The real benefits go to the dairy farmers, who also get a reduction in the cost of (re-)entry into the market. Ditto to the consumers, who get cheaper milk.

It's not bad when your proposal addresses harm to the farmers, harm to the consumers and unfairness to our trading partners. That's it benefits a political (as opposed to real) opponent is just a cost of doing business.

--dave

do this the day it becomes law

[Anonymous Coward]

take a legally store bought dvdr and make a back up take both and turn yourselves in.
if a few million do this the day it becomes law the whole system will crash and judges will toss it out left and right and the precidence will force the idiot govt to remake the law and ...we got more of these lil issues with the charter like CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT so dont just take that part out....DONT bother period.

Re:do this the day it becomes law

[Anonymous Coward]

Go on then, after you

Re:do this the day it becomes law

[SJHillman]

take a legally store bought dvdr and make a back up take both and turn yourselves in.
if a few million do this the day it becomes law the whole system will crash and judges will toss it out left and right and the precidence will force the idiot govt to remake the law and ...we got more of these lil issues with the charter like CRUEL AND UNUSUAL PUNISHMENT so dont just take that part out....DONT bother period.

Better yet, convince someone that everyone is going to do this, then videotape it when he/she's the only one that does.

The current Canadian Government are ...

[Anonymous Coward]

drunk with their own power. Under Harper, they will find a way to end the career of any civil servant ... or judge I'm sure ... that dares makes any ruling they don't like. They certainly aren't worried about the Canadian Constitution.
Canada has been trailing the USA for years ... but it finally caught up and showed it could have a government that makes the Bush Administration look honest, caring, and competent.

Re:The current Canadian Government are ...

[Mashiki]

Yeah, don't forget that it was the liberals who proposed the original law in the first place or anything.

Re:The current Canadian Government are ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Completely untrue. The copyright bill the Liberals introduced and failed to pass was very different from the Conservative one; for one thing, it did not prohibit the distribution of "circumvention devices" (i.e. libdvdcss) The Liberals and the NDP have fought against the Conservatives' copyright bill to the bitter end while the Conservatives recite MPAA talking points and all but call the opposition freetards. Stephen Harper owns this bill 100%.

Re:The current Canadian Government are ...

[Anonymous Coward]

And they should be.

Government bureaucrats who don't follow the direction of the democratically elected government should be fired.
The government and ministers are responsible, and their staff do their job, which is carry out the work assigned by the minister.

As for judges I don't see an issue there, Canadian judges are almost never dismissed, and they quite often rule against the government of all political stripes on a wide variety of issues.

Pffft!

[Anonymous Coward]

Harper doesn't care... the assault on democratic rights goes on

Ministry of Justice

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

If it's from Canada, it's from the Ministry of Justice, not the Department of Justice. The DOJ is in the US.

Ministry of Justice... I hope their office is the MOJO...

Re:Ministry of Justice

[Livius]

Wrong. Department of Justice is the correct legal name (and they should know!). (Though it is Ministère de la Justice in French.) The head of the department is the Minister of Justice.

Re:Ministry of Justice

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Oh no! There goes my mojo...

Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

Does the Constitution even apply to Canada? I thought they were a Commonwealth country...

Re:Constitution?

[dadragon]

Canada has its own constitution.

Re:Constitution?

[Anonymous Coward]

And what Americans think of as a constitution would be our charter, it's much more similar:

http://laws-lois.justice.gc.ca/eng/charter/

The BNA (as it was taught when I was a kid, now call the Constitution Act) is basically a set of old rules that glommed together upper and lower Canada into a country. It has a bunch of really weird rules in it that were used as concessions to various people to get Canada together as a country, such as the requirement that Ontario offer Catholic or Christian religious-based education (whichever party has the fewest participants, catholic schools have been the defacto standard). It also covers payments from the federal government to the provinces, retirement age, number of seats each provinces holds in federal government, and powers to make social programs.

I confess! And I'd like to turn myself in...

[Anonymous Coward]

I wonder what would happen if I showed up at a police station with a CSS-protected movie DVD (exhibit 1), an iPod (exhibit 2), showed the duty offer the same format-converted movie on the iPod, and cited the relevant section of the new copyright law prohibiting circumvention of "digital locks"? Would they charge me or laugh me out of the station?

Canada Got it Backwards

[Bob9113]

the Department of Justice issued a legal opinion warning about the potential for constitutional violations.

Quick pro-tip, Canada: You're supposed to stuff your DoJ with ex-RIAA lawyers, then you won't have that problem.

Re:Canada Got it Backwards

[Em Adespoton]

One of the saner parts of our system is that DoJ-stuffing is significantly more difficult here. Senate stuffing, on the other hand, is trivially easy, and they keep the position for life (which does limit the windows in which the stuffing can take place -- or limits the life expectancy of Senators).

Wondering

[Anonymous Coward]

You know.. this has me wondering if they did it on purpose.. The rest of the law is pretty fair, it's just that one clause that really ruins it, but IF they knew ahead of time it couldn't withstand a constitutional challenge, could it be they added it to appease the US long enough to gain entry into the TPP knowing that clause would eventually fail a challenge and we would end up with the law we wanted??

Re:I confess! And I'd like to turn myself in...

[canajin56]

Nothing, because the bill doesn't make it a criminal case, it grants civil remedies to the harmed party. So unless the police owned the copyright they couldn't take action. And if they did, they would sue you, not arrest you.

Re:I confess! And I'd like to turn myself in...

[Anonymous Coward]

Rats. So, I guess I should contact the relevant movie studio first, and then ask them to sue me. Although, I suppose I could buy one of those DVDs of the police vs. fire department charity hockey matches, transfer it to my iPod, then turn myself in.

Really?

[mevets]

You think a motley collection of onion farmers are that sophisticated? The PM is a low functioning retard and his cabinet cannot reach that bar. The sleazy group that give them their marching orders - the little shits - are not so stupid, but they are blind with greed.
No, they blew the jizz out of their noses, collected their booty and moved on. Mercifully, the work of decent minds from the past will undo this crap; but not until many have suffered.
Demagoguery - the strategy of cowards - has been understood for eons, yet is prevalent today.

Re:I confess! And I'd like to turn myself in...

[mark-t]

Ah... you do not understand law in Canada.

First of all, copyright infringement actually is a criminal offense in Canada.

In matters of criminal cases in Canada, the crown (police) can press charges against an individual even if the injured party does not express any interest.

That said, however, the police in Canada have long since stated that they will not pursue cases of "private copyright infringement".

Another charter violation

[Anonymous Coward]

Cruel and unusual punishment
ya know if as i suggested way up you made a copy of a legit bought dvdr then the penalty is 20000$
OR 6.7 year maximum sentence when you tell the judge you think the law is not only unjust but is cruel and unusual punishment for something that you aren't distributing to anyone and are merely backing up as a cost cutting measure during hard times .....
and then say if the judge will personally pay for the next copy when ever it gets scratched and so on then you wont do it any more otherwise you will continue to do so.
THEN as an example you tell the judge you could run not him/her in parking lot and beat them to an inch of there life called assault causing bodily harm and get less time....and suggest perhaps the next person will just go and beat up a judge instead of backing up something they bought and then ask why hammer makers aren't charged a fee every time they use a hammer or when someone walks through a door or gets in a car?
CAUSE IT WOULD NEVER FLY....legally.

Canadian DMCA?

[6Yankee]

Would that be the DMC, eh?

Failure is success

[fluffythedestroyer]

Maybe we need this to fail big time, and I mean a big serious failure on Harper's administration and the fed gov so that when they let it go and cancel the whole thing, they wont touch it until someone (or something) makes sense with this type of law.

It's the same as saying that you need to fail to succeed in your later attempts