Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

Canada's New DMCA Considered Worst Copyright Law

Posted by kdawson on Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:31 AM
from the outdoing-the-southern-neighbours dept.
loconet writes "The government of Canada is preparing to attempt to bring a new DMCA-modeled copyright law in Canada in order to comply with the WIPO treaties the country signed in 1997. (These treaties were also the base of the American DMCA.) The new Canadian law will be even more restrictive in nature than the American version and worse than the last Canadian copyright proposal, the defeated Bill C-60. Among the many restrictive clauses in this new law, as Michael Geist explains, is the total abolishment of the concept of fair use: 'No parody exception. No time shifting exception. No device shifting exception. No expanded backup provision. Nothing.' Geist provides a list of 30 things that can be done to address the issues."
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] Swiss DMCA Quietly Adopted 137 comments
roady writes "We have seen a lot of talk over the years about the Canadian DMCA. But few know about the Swiss version recently adopted by law makers ... not even the Swiss people. The government and media have been very quiet, probably to avoid a referendum. Indeed, Switzerland is a direct democracy and if 50,000 citizens sign a referendum, the whole country will have a chance to vote against the new copyright law. In this version of the DMCA, sharing a file on P2P networks will land you one year in jail, even though the law mandates a levy on blank media. The history of the law is available online."
[+] Politics: Canadian DMCA Bill Withdrawn 198 comments
ToriaUru writes to let us know that Michael Geist is reporting that the Canadian Minister of Industry will not be introducing the proposed Canadian Digital Millennium Copyright Act legislation as scheduled. That proposed legislation, discussed here a couple of weeks back, is now reaching Canada's mainstream press. Geist doesn't speculate on why the legislation is being withdrawn, but it could have something to do with the massive popular outcry against the proposal that Geist helped to orchestrate.
[+] US Group Calls Canada a Top Copyright Violator 293 comments
eldurbarn tips a CBC story reporting that the US-based International Intellectual Property Alliance claims Canada has joined Russia and China among the biggest violators of US copyright law. Quoting: "The group's report is the latest to urge the US government into pressuring Ottawa to reform copyright laws." As we have previously discussed here, the current Conservative government had planned to introduce a new copyright law, but dissent from the privacy commissioner and a groundswell of public protest delayed that action. eldurbarn adds, "What makes this story so important now is that this pressure is being applied at a time and in a manner that may cause the Canadian government to fall, forcing an election." Meanwhile, on the other side of the rapidly heating debate, Michael Geist blogs about the forces arrayed against a Canadian DMCA. The Business Coalition for Balanced Copyright, which includes a who's who of the telecom, Internet, retail, and broadcast communities, has outlined a list of its copyright reform demands.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.
  • A you saying it's entirely possible that in the very near future Canadians might start envying American digital rights liberties? I think my head is going to explode...

    • by FredDC (1048502) on Thursday November 29 2007, @10:52AM (#21518673)
      Canadians probably saw the DMCA laws in the US, and thought "Pfff, we can do better than that!".

      Note to Canadians: It's NOT a good idea to try to beat the US on everything!
      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        All humor aside, kinda makes one wonder how long draconian enforcement measures would last in Canada if (a) this sort of garbage became law, and (b) average Canadians started getting hurt by the consequences of something as simple as making a personal backup of something covered under the legislation. My bet is: not nearly as long as we in America have tolerated incidents of similar severity, but I could be very sadly mistaken. For now there's always the optimistic view, right? Time will tell, I suppose.
      • Yep, them hosers just got hosed!!!
      • Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:04AM (#21518835)
        This is a non-issue. The bill will never pass.

        The US complains about Canada's IP laws all the time. So every so often we introduce a new bill so we can point and say "see US, we're trying!". However the bill is purposely written to be so restrictive as to never, ever make it through 3 readings in the House of Commons. A bit wasteful, sure, but for the most part it keeps the americans off our backs.
        • Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)

          by TMB (70166) on Thursday November 29 2007, @12:52PM (#21520699)
          While I certainly hope you're correct, do you have any basis for that? If it were a majority government, I suspect it would pass easily, and if Harper really wants to make everything a confidence vote, the Liberals aren't going to choose digital rights as the election issue.

          [TMB]
        • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

          This bill will pass; The Conservatives, Liberals and Bloc support it, the only party really opposed to this bill is the NDP.

          Please, write your MP. I have compiled a list of good arguments you can use when writing them [lovethisgame.net].
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I don't know who you are Anonymouse Coward, or whether you know anything about Canadian politics, but I think you're dead wrong here.

          This isn't garbage legislation, the kind of legislation that will never pass but is introduced to make their voting base happy. This legislation is important to the rich CRIA lobbyists and the Conservatives want to reward them for their support. The Conservatives mentioned these new laws in their Throne Speech, so it's definately important to them.

          The Conservatives would never
      • Geist provides a list of 30 things that can be done to address the issues

        I don't even need to read it to know #1 is move to the US lol

        Or just host fair use/parody/etc on servers in the US, outside the jurisdiction of Canadian courts. If it works for the White Aryan Nation whack-a-moles (who moved their servers from Canada to the US to escape Canadian laws about propagating hate literature), it can work for everyone else ...

  • Not news (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday November 29 2007, @10:36AM (#21518441)
    This is hardly surprising. The current Canadian government is more interested in mirroring American political issues than doing the bidding of it's own people.
    Most of us here are embarrassed. Sorry, we'll vote better next time.
    • Re:Not news (Score:5, Funny)

      by Presto Vivace (882157) on Thursday November 29 2007, @10:47AM (#21518589) Homepage Journal
      Most of us here are embarrassed. Sorry, we'll vote better next time. hey, that's our excuse!
      • Re:Not news (Score:5, Funny)

        by ColdWetDog (752185) on Thursday November 29 2007, @10:55AM (#21518713) Homepage

        Most of us here are embarrassed. Sorry, we'll vote better next time. hey, that's our excuse!

        That was our excuse and I'm pretty sure we copyrighted it (or maybe we patented it, I get so confused these days). Give it back.

        Besides, it doesn't work very well.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        Zut à la fin ! I was about to pirate^Wmake fair use of that excuse too.

        We too have elected a neocon. [independent.co.uk]. (although I don't include myself in that "we", having campaigned for years against that guy and his policies.)

    • Re:Not news (Score:5, Informative)

      by MrAndrews (456547) * <mcm.is.now@gmail . c om> on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:01AM (#21518801) Homepage
      Actually, it's not so much American politics as it is the will of American corporations... the government apparently got the entire text of the bill from the MPAA [pttbt.ca]...
      • Re:Not news (Score:5, Insightful)

        by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:16AM (#21519041) Homepage

        Actually, it's not so much American politics as it is the will of American corporations

        American politics is the will of American corporations nowadays. It was US corporations which pressured the US government to strong arm everyone in the WIPO to adopt these rules.

        The *AA's managed to influence the laws in many countries by influencing American politicians to serve their own purposes. We all lose.

        Now that they have made almost everyone else adopt these laws, they've started to lobby the government to harmonize US laws with everyone else. So, they managed to get everyone else's laws updated so they could then get domestic laws updated.

        How messed up is that?

        Cheers
      • Re:Not news (Score:5, Interesting)

        by gstoddart (321705) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:27AM (#21519217) Homepage

        Maybe you should try RTFA or at least RTFS. This is not about bending to the will of America, it is about complying with international treaties.

        Which American politicians pushed on the members of the WIPO after they'd been lobbied by the *AAs.

        The bending has already happened, and, yes, America were the original instigators of these measures. They insisted that everyone else adopt these laws, because they wanted to protect the American movie and music industries.

        This is not adhering to international treaties that everyone else in the world decided we needed. It was in response to pressure from American interests that it all happened in the first place.

        Bush is still an ass, but, I don't know if these measures were pushed on his watch or Clintons. But, don't pretend that American interests weren't being served when these treaties were signed.

        Cheers
      • Re:Not news (Score:5, Insightful)

        by kebes (861706) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:36AM (#21519383) Journal

        Canada has its own laws, and its own legislature. It can choose to withdraw from the treaties (very unlikely since there a major downsides to leaving WIPO).
        Yes, this is largely about complying with international treaties which Canada has already agreed to. So, to a large extent, the complaint is that said treaties should never have been signed in the first place. The WIPO provisions for DMCA-like legislation greatly over-reaches. So, even though this treaty has been signed, it should not be followed. Signatories should "do the right thing" and repeal their support for said treaties. (Wishful thinking, I know.) Just because a treaty has been signed does not, of course, make it proper and correct.

        This is not about bending to the will of America, it is about complying with international treaties.
        Well, actually Michael Geist explains [michaelgeist.ca] the situation as:

        The new Canadian legislation will likely mirror the DMCA with strong anti-circumvention legislation - far beyond what is needed to comply with the WIPO Internet treaties - and address none of the issues that concern millions of Canadians. The Conservatives promise to eliminate the private copying levy will likely be abandoned. There will be no flexible fair dealing. No parody exception. No time shifting exception. No device shifting exception. No expanded backup provision. Nothing.
        (Emphasis added.)

        In fact, there is a concern that while legislation is being proposed to conform to treaties, the opportunity will be seized to extend the laws beyond what is strictly required. In particular, it was found [michaelgeist.ca] that some members of Canadian government are being influenced (financially, etc.) by U.S. lobbies. So, there is a real danger that overly restrictive laws get put in place in order to appease U.S. corporations (or the U.S. government, depending on how you want to look at it).

        It's not as simple as saying that Canada must comply with the treaties it has signed. As you say, the law can be implemented in various ways, and we must all do our best to insure that they are implemented in sane, democratic, and freedom-preserving ways. (Which may mean not implementing them at all.)
        • Wait a second on this idea that "Canada" signed a WIPO treaty. In actual fact, it was minions of a particular administration who decided to sign this treaty, with the usual avoidance of democratic process that signing international treaties entails these days, much to the disgrace of national governments everywhere. Think about this. As an individual, how often do you personally sign a legal contract, text to be supplied later, to the convenience of other parties? Yet apparently our government feels qui
  • by Sockatume (732728) on Thursday November 29 2007, @10:37AM (#21518461) Homepage
    Kill it with fire.
  • Geist's list of 30 things you can do [michaelgeist.ca], linked to in TFS, is pretty good, actually, no matter where you live. Even if your country already has a DMCA-like law, you can still fight for it or certain provisions of it to be repealed. Just replace the Canadian-sepcific info with the equivalents in your country.

    Furthermore, some of it just plain good advice -- only buy DRM-free music and videos, release stuff under the Creative Commons licenses. And so forth.

    Most of you are gonna be like, yeah, yeah, but no one cares. That's not true anymore. Now that the MAFIAA have become a nuisance and even public enemy #1 as far as some are concerned, the public will push for change. Like it or not, most politicians eventually cave to public opinion. After all, they need the public's support in order to get elected.
  • Finally! (Score:5, Funny)

    by pushing-robot (1037830) on Thursday November 29 2007, @10:40AM (#21518501)
    After that whole dollar thing, I thought we'd never be able to make fun of Canada again.

    Blame Canada! Woohoo!
  • ... If you needed common sense. Now it's basically the 51st state since Stephen Harper [wikipedia.org] became Prime Minister (or "Steve" as GWB calls him). Too bad.

    The good news is that the song "Blame Canada" will now have some real life relevance.
  • Contact Your MP (Score:5, Informative)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Thursday November 29 2007, @10:45AM (#21518559)
    If you are Canadian, I encourage you to contact your member of parliament [parl.gc.ca] and make sure they know you, as a voter, want them to put the concerns of Canadian consumers before big business (especially foreign big business).
    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      I actually did that. And I got absolutely no reply. It was a short polite letter. Not even a note of receipt. But I do not think that the opposition will block this....
    • Re:Contact Your MP (Score:5, Insightful)

      by dmatos (232892) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:34AM (#21519333)
      Until the actual bill is posted somewhere where it can be read, there is no point in doing anything. Hell, I haven't even seen a number that's been assigned to this bill.

      My MP has responded in a timely manner to even emails that I've sent him about my opposition to specific pieces of legislation. I will wait until it is actually tabled before I start doing anything. Right now, it's just FUD. "A possible bill that may be proposed might have horrible consequences for the state of copyright in Canada."
  • Huh? (Score:3, Interesting)

    by VorpalRodent (964940) on Thursday November 29 2007, @10:49AM (#21518625)
    Does this retroactively make the once ubiquitous VCR (or DVRs) illegal? Correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't Canada already have a tax on blank media in an effort to combat piracy (or something similar)?

    What about television news shows? If the equivalent of the concept of fair use doesn't exist, are they no longer permitted to report on issues for which they didn't do the original information gathering? What if it's a cited work?

    I admit, I only read the summary for this one, but based on the summary, it appears to be one of the first (if only) accurate Slashdot article titles ever. This truly is the worst copyright law ever conceived. For that matter, it sounds like it would take a truly stupendous lapse in the mental faculties of any politician involved in order to come to the point where one thinks that this would be a good idea.

    Well, at least there's another reminder that American politicians aren't the only stupid ones...not that such is really encouraging.

  • by ngunton (460215) on Thursday November 29 2007, @10:54AM (#21518699) Homepage
    That does it! I'm moving to... oh wait
  • Better not (Score:3, Interesting)

    by OpenSourced (323149) on Thursday November 29 2007, @10:55AM (#21518707) Journal
    30 things that can be done to address the issues

    I'd say better not. It'd be much better if the law would be passed in that very form. The stronger the law, the less likely it'll ever be enforced. Judges will have to impose penalties to normal people that will have just taped some program for later viewing. Probably the judge himself will have done the same. Probably most of the people voting "yes" for the law will have done the same. The situation will be really untenable, and the whole law will gather dust. If they end with a "reasonable" law, perhaps they'll end up really enforcing it.

  • by courteaudotbiz (1191083) on Thursday November 29 2007, @10:56AM (#21518725) Homepage
    The parliament can vote whatever-the-law they want, but they still have to apply it. And the RCMP (our equivalent of the US FBI) explicitly said that they won't go after any individual for copyright infringement...

    So what's the use of a law if you're not to enforce it?
    • by vux984 (928602) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:09AM (#21518903)
      So what's the use of a law if you're not to enforce it?

      Selective enforcement.

      They only enforce it when you need leverage over someone. And since practically everyone will be a rampant violator, whenever the government wants to shut somebody up, or suspect them of rape, murder, vandalism or whatever and can't prove it, they'll just charge them with 4000 counts of violation of this law, and threaten them with a billion dollar penalty.

        • "You really think someone will get charged that much for recording Canadian Idol on his VHS without the commercials for 15 weeks in a row?"

          They'll obviously use the insanity defense.

          Of course, if they make the jury watch all the evidence, the jury will vote for the death penalty - even though we don't have a death penalty.

  • by CaptDeuce (84529) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:08AM (#21518899) Journal

    Geist provides a list of 30 things that can be done to address the issues.

    Do any of them involve the use of rubber chickens and a garrote?

  • by debrain (29228) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:25AM (#21519183) Journal
    Wasn't the woman in charge of copyright reform in the Canadian Government and in a closet relationship with a member of the Canadian Recording Industry Association?

    I can't find the reference, now, but thought it relevant. Maybe someone can find it?

  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:28AM (#21519233)
    note to governments all over the world:

    the world will NOT stop if the mega-rich media moguls make a little less money in the new 'digital millennia' (god, I hate that phrase). why do they have a 'god given right' to extort money from customers but the customers get less and less fair-use rights, over time?

    lawmakers, please stop being slaves to media corporations. we all know they help pay your salary (kickbacks) but we, the real citizens, also contribute to your salary (our tax base). please don't forget you are there to serve neutrally and fairly.

  • Fair use in Canada (Score:3, Informative)

    by IPCanuck (1055714) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:39AM (#21519441)
    A little background may shed some light on Prof. Geist's comments. Canada has no 'fair use' law - we have 'fair dealing' which is more restrictive to users. While American copyright law describes what rights copyright owners have, and everything else is open to users, Canadian copyright law describes what narrow rights copyright users have, and everything else is restricted.

    When Prof. Geist talks about time- and format-shifting, parody, and backup exceptions, these are not exceptions to copyright that are being taken away from Canadians. These are rights that, technically, we've never had. Unlike the US, which had the famous Sony/Betamax case which legalized VCRs, we have never had that debate, and consumers would likely lose if we did. VCRs and PVRs (DVRs) are in a legal grey area at best, if not outright illegal, and yet they are in virtually every home.

    This leads to Canada lagging behind with adoption of newer technologies, due to the legally questionable situation manufacturers might find themselves in. TiVo just announced their entry into the Canadian market (officially) this month. How can our government move to reform copyright, and in the process make criminals of virtually everyone? How do we get out of our current contradictory mess of copyright law in Canada, through which downloading of copyrighted material from the internet is legal, and yet VCRs are not?

    This bill has not yet been introduced, so we cannot even read it for ourselves to confirm or deny these rumours. That said, I urge every Canadian reading this post to write (snail-mail is best!) their MP post haste and let them know that they don't want to become a criminal every time they transfer songs from their CDs to their iPod, or use their PVR/DVR or VCR. No postage necessary. You can find your MP here: http://webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParliament/MainMPsCompleteList.aspx?TimePeriod=Current&Language=E/ [parl.gc.ca]

    Hon. Josée Verner and Hon. Jim Prentice are the ministers in charge of the copyright file. Write them too!
  • smart (Score:3, Interesting)

    by icepick72 (834363) on Thursday November 29 2007, @12:00PM (#21519825)
    That's the beauty of Canada. This law will never pass. In fact I'd suggest that's the purpose behind the strictness of the law, to ensure it doesn't get passed and therefore everything stays the same. We've got a formula and we're using it. Maybe it's like a company that's being forced into making children's toys and they don't want to, so they always propose something absurd like the nuclear happy fun ball with pins and needles ... and their suggestions always get turned down. It's awesome.
  • by idan (98190) on Thursday November 29 2007, @02:49PM (#21522685) Homepage
    The Parliament posts its order of business .. here:

    http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=status&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2 [parl.gc.ca]

    This supposed "Super-DMCA" is nowhere on the list of house or private members bills.
    The government never gets through its order of business anyways, so if this thing is supposed
    to get tacked onto the end of the list at some future date, it's unlikely to even
    get a reading during this session of parliament.

    Sure smells like fear-mongering, rather than anything serious..
  • by gordguide (307383) on Thursday November 29 2007, @04:55PM (#21524511)
    WHAT new law?

    This hasn't even been tabled yet. There is a minority government in power; the opposition can shoot down anything it wants and there's nothing the government can do about it. It hasn't got to second reading, it hasn't got to the Senate, it's pure speculation at worst and in need of some rather improbable help at best. Most of the bills this government tabled in the last session (a year ago) died on the order paper (means nothing happened and can ever happen with them).

    Sorry, I'm calling you on this.

    BULLSHIT

    • Unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)

      by Seek_1 (639070) on Thursday November 29 2007, @10:45AM (#21518553)
      I'd say extremely unlikely. We've been fairly (and rightly) entitled to fair use, personal copying etc for a while now thanks to the levy. All this will do is create confusion and cloud the issue.

      That said, if there is any sort of Canadian Consumers user group that I could contribute to in order to help oppose ridiculous lobby-funded wastes of our government (and people!)'s time like this, I'd be more than willing to contribute...
      • I also doubt anything that would cause negative response from the people is not going to be done by the harper minority government. they're already teetering on a re-election or even a vote of non-confidence. they try to pass that, they MIGHT get the bloc, but the liberals and the ndp won't vote for it. and it could easily fail in the commons. and if they force a vote, the conservatives could easily be ousted..
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          I'm not so optimistic. Recent polls I've seen show the Tories at a near-majority. The NDP and Liberals have already caved on a couple of bills they were mostly against because defeating it could have led to an election. Could happen with this one. If they do defeat a bill that's treated as a no-confidence vote it's likely that the public will blame the Libs for forcing yet another election and the Tories will come out further ahead. All in all, I don't think the Tories are afraid of a vote of no confidence.
          • Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Informative)

            by Bullfish (858648) on Thursday November 29 2007, @11:27AM (#21519213)
            Of course the moment that Hans Schrieber connected Harper to Lyin' Brian Mulrooney the party dropped eight points back in the polls to be tied with the liberals again... I sincerely doubt that this legislation will be given high priority
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        Meh, it's time for an election. It looks like the conservatives are just as dirty as the liberals, but the liberals have had their spanking.

        Just tell everybody during the campaign that the conservatives want to make it illegal to put your CDs on your iPod, so go vote.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      On the one hand I don't think it'll fly in it's most draconian form - we'll probably end up with a somewhat watered down version.

      On the other hand though, my Usenet connection is likely to be humming along 24/7 for the next couple of months.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      This bill has been a long time coming, and the priorities of the current government are well-established. It isn't the first time we've been down this road (Bill C-60). New anti-camcording legislation was adopted at warp speed earlier this year, despite questions about the necessity. Copyright reform was specifically mentioned in the Speech from the Throne earlier this year. Plus rumours are a-plenty on this from sources all around Ottawa, not just Prof. Geist.

      Boing Boing, Excess Copyright, Centre fo
        • As described in Geist's post, the bill would outlaw VCRs.

          After sitting through another insulting pre-movie commercial, nothing would surprise me anymore:

          Image of a prison security camera monitoring an imate pacing his cell. Commentary (paraphrased): "he camcordered a movie, now the justice system gets to camcorder him for 10 years".

          That is now actual law. With rather scary commercials to back this up. People can seriously be put in PRISON for 10 years, for recording a movie. And the rest of us get to be cal