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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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:

[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.

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: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.

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:Constitution?

[dadragon]

Canada has its own constitution.

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...

[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".

Re:Ministry of Justice

[Oxford_Comma_Lover]

Oh no! There goes my mojo...

Canadian DMCA?

[6Yankee]

Would that be the DMC, eh?