Slashdot Log In
Canada's Proposed DMCA-Style Law Draws Fire
Posted by
timothy
on Thu Jun 12, 2008 02:57 PM
from the sequels-usually-suck dept.
from the sequels-usually-suck dept.
litui writes "Michael Geist assesses the problems with new copyright legislation presented today. In short, it looks like unless it's heavily contested, Canadians are in for a worse piece of law than the DMCA." CBC News' story quotes one critic, Scott Brison, who warns that enforcing the anti-circumvention clauses of this legislation would turn Canada into a police state — which, considering the pervasive eavesdropping it would take to make sure that people aren't enjoying their rights to fair use (or "fair dealing") of hardware or media, seems like a fair prediction.
Related Stories
[+]
Politics: Geist's Fair Copyright for Canada Principles 43 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Canadian law prof Michael Geist has been leading the charge against a Canadian DMCA including the creation of a Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group that now has more than 38,000 members. Having delayed the legislation, he now outlines what Canadians should be fighting for — more flexible fair dealing, a
balanced implementation of the WIPO Internet treaties, an ISP safe
harbor, and a modernized backup copy provision."
[+]
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This discussion has been archived.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
Loading... please wait.
Mac and Linux users... (Score:5, Interesting)
With the new law, it is going to be illegal to bypass any "digital" locks
that a content creator/publisher puts on their work.
One of these systems that is used by some Record companies prevents you from
coping a CD on a Microsoft Windows machine. The way that it works is that it
automatically loads up a program when you put the CD into the computer that
prevents the transfering of CD's music to either your computer or Ipod. This
is known as Digitial Rights Managment or Copy Protection.
But what if you a Mac, or a Linux machine?
As the software that is automatically loaded from the CD to prevent you
copying only works under Microsoft Window, it would thus be illegal to put
that CD into your Mac, as it would be a "circumvention of the copy
protection" on the CD.
This law is stooopid!
ttyl
Farrell
Re:Mac and Linux users... (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:Mac and Linux users... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Mac and Linux users... (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:Mac and Linux users... (Score:5, Insightful)
If they put in one bit and call it a "copyright protection device", you can't copy it or you're breaking the law. It doesn't have to DO anything, just be called a "copy protect flag". If no devices exist that support it, then you have to buy a new compliant device. Otherwise, that's circumventing.
Geist is right. It passes the law onto the companies instead of to the courts.
Parent
Re:Mac and Linux users... (Score:5, Informative)
What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?
Specifically, it includes measures that would:
* expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the "statutory damages" a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;
* implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy;
* clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and
* provide photographers with the same rights as other creators.
What Bill C-61 does not do:
* it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation
What this Bill is not:
* it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia
Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner.
For more information, please visit the Copyright Reform Process website at www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home
Thank you for sharing your views on this important matter.
The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P. Minister of Industry
The Honourable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P. Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages and Minister for La Francophonie
Parent
Re:Draconian Legislation. (Score:5, Insightful)
The you blather on about 'your rights' and 'taking your anti-corporate rants elsewhere.' In the same damn sentence. May I ask, who is endangering your rights if it isn't the corporations?
I think your irrational hatred of the twit is clouding your judgment. He's a sock puppeting fool, but you come across as even more of a loony than he does by lashing out at him like that.
Most of us just ignore him when he's being an idiot, which he's not even doing here.
Parent
Twitter obsessed fools: please note (Score:5, Insightful)
By now, even twitter's grandmother's dog's fleas know he uses sockpuppets, mission accomplished, let it go. I'm bored to death of whiny people with twitter obsessions. So he uses sock puppets, get over it. No one else cares. Either refute what he says, or leave it alone, it makes you all look even nuttier than twitter himself.
Parent
Liberals (Score:5, Interesting)
Hopefully... lately the Liberals (our official opposition) have been obstaining from votes rather than trigger an election when they're down in the polls. A sad state of affairs, really.
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Interesting)
If they can't stand up for their beliefs for something as important to Canada as immigration, then no way do they have the guts to make a big deal out of copyright reform.
Parent
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Interesting)
Parent
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Interesting)
I've been a Liberal supporter for almost 20 years. I've volunteered during every election since I was 12 years old to help out. The idea of having Stephane Dion for a prime minister frightens me. I'm glad they didn't trigger an election, no good could come of it. Either Harper gets a majority or Stephane will form a government that will smear the Liberal name as badly or worse than Brian Mulroney did for the Conservatives.
These are dark days in Canadian politics.
Parent
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Funny)
pretty please? we promise to buy lots of maple syrup
honest we will
Parent
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Insightful)
It's our own problem if we don't take advantage of the opportunity.
Parent
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Funny)
I am not sure if can handle that one.
Parent
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Interesting)
Sadly the Liberals (kind like your Democrats) are performing just like your Democrat controlled congress.
They have decided that their party politics and political strategy is more important than any of the actual issues that have come to a vote.
Parent
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be nice if "the leader of the opposition" actually did his fucking job.
Parent
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Write Your MP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Write Your MP (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca/action/firstlook/ [copyrightforcanadians.ca]
Here's what their website says about it:
"After months of hesitation, Industry Minister Jim Prentice has finally revealed his re-write of Canada's rules of copyright. Tell your MP just what you think of it."
Parent
Re:Write Your MP (Score:5, Interesting)
I am not Canadian, and my first impression is that you guys already pay a CD tax to pay for copying discs, making file sharing legal, how does the new bill affect that? If it prevents you (legally) from making those copies, should the media companies lose that CD tax?
Parent
Re:Write Your MP (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
A small piece of hope (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A small piece of hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Current Goverment Talking points (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Current Goverment Talking points (Score:5, Insightful)
it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation
Parent
Re:Current Goverment Talking points (Score:5, Insightful)
Provided that the music isn't coming from a DVD, and that the original source isn't protected by DRM, in which case the new bill actually expressly criminalizes it, whereas before it would have been legal.
But not laser discs, video-CDs, DVDs, or any other audio-visual media with the exception of videocassettes. Again, these are now criminalized.
If you're using P2P technology, this new bill imposes a $20,000 fine for "making available", which is far more than the current statutory damages.
This part doesn't seem so bad (unless I'm missing something). Basically, if ISPs get served with a notice, they have to pass it on to their users, which seems good.
Parent
We need to contact the MSM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We need to contact the MSM (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Re:We need to contact the MSM (Score:5, Informative)
Parent
Feeding the trolls (Score:5, Insightful)
Probably 99% of Canadians don't care a whole lot about the war in Iraq. Health care yes, even though we're all covered. But taxes? That's basically what this law is. Allow me to quote Mark Lemley on the faculty of Stanford Law School: "intellectual property is a form of government subsidy". The monopoly protection this law introduces will increase the cost of music, video, computers, cell phones, and so on. So yeah, it's a tax in all but name. But I don't listen to music and I borrow my videos from the library, so the truth is I don't care a whole lot about how much those cost. This law is a whole lot more - and the more is the problem.
I care about being able to use my computer as a I wish. I care about living in a living, vibrant culture which people can engage in, rather than having it exclusively controlled by American entertainment giants. I care about not having a War on Drugs repeat waged against 90% of the population under the age of 35% for listening to music of all things.
If people like you spent half as much time actually doing something as you do criticizing those who do (or whining about those who don't) your country and mine would be a whole lot more democratic.
Parent
Political Theatre (Score:5, Interesting)
There's a good chance that this is just political theatre. The Conservatives promised their big-entertainment paymasters that they would introduce this bill in this session of parliament, so they are doing so, but this is the end of the session and the bill is hugely unpopular, so it will likely die when the parliamentary session closes.
What I would like to see for is the Conservatives to make the bill a matter of confidence, the Liberals to vote it under thereby forcing an election, and then the Liberals wining a majority government by harping on this piece of unpopular legislation. This would show the politicians that bills of this kind are political suicide for whatever party introduces them.
Re:Political Theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Tell MPs What's Wrong with the Prentice Bill (Score:5, Informative)
http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca/action/firstlook/ [copyrightforcanadians.ca]
Here's what their website says about it:
"After months of hesitation, Industry Minister Jim Prentice has finally revealed his re-write of Canada's rules of copyright. Tell your MP just what you think of it."
Worse is better. (Score:4, Insightful)
Confidence Motion? (Score:5, Interesting)
The Sci-Fi Present (Score:5, Insightful)
Cory Doctorow's recent story "I, Robot [craphound.com]" comes to mind.
How do these laws keep getting pushed through in the "free world" of democratic governments? Yes, I understand the influence of lobbyists and big business, but still. Is it really too complicated for the average person to understand the significance of these laws? Or do they just not care?
Perhaps it is just a limitation of our systems of government. As a US citizen I hate DMCA-style laws. But I only get one vote for a given office, and I have to find ONE candidate to agree with me not just on DCMA, but on war, health care, economics, and all the other issues. Furthermore, I only get two choices with a realistic shot at victory, and it's likely they've both already been bought by big media.
So what's left to do? I'm asking honestly, how do we work towards change? I'm hoping for something between "angry blog post" and "bloody military coup."
It's even worse than you think (Score:5, Insightful)
If you read the bill over quickly, it appears to guarantee certain consumer rights, such as copying CD's you legally bought, time-shifting and such. Closer examination, though, shows that those rights are actually non-existent. All a corporation needs to do is put copy protection on a CD/DVD or tell you they don't want you to reproduce the music or whatever and disobeying their wish would be illegal. So if the producer put "DO NOT COPY" on the cover of a CD, you're screwed...even if you just brought it home from the store.
I won't bother going into detail on the whole police state aspect to this abortion because somebody's already done so. But it's scary as hell.
Phoning In and Mailing In (Score:5, Informative)
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Compilations/HouseOfCommons/MemberByPostalCode.aspx?Menu=HOC [parl.gc.ca]
I plan to write some letters tonight.
This bill is not designed to pass (Score:5, Insightful)
Politically, this is pretty stupid to roll out, but I think Harper is feeling heat from American business interests and bowing to them - SOP for this government.
In the scrum at the announcement, there were deflections over questions over whether a kid remixing and uploading a song to YouTube would be slapped with a $500 fine. I think they know they are vulnerable on this: Vernier suddenly developed a hearing problem and Prentice was a bot, repeating carefully scripted talking points. Watch the video, it's quite amusing: http://tinyurl.com/3zvmjn [tinyurl.com]
Let me assure you, while Canadians are mostly passive, people will hold this one against the government Some of you may remember when there was that outrage over Rogers Cable's negative-option billing scheme. The lesson that all governments should heed is that it's not wise to mess with a Canadian's media.
Speak out! (Score:5, Informative)
here it is:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/2431/125/ [michaelgeist.ca]
Enjoy!
My letter to Jim Prentice (Score:5, Insightful)
Before we pass a similar law here in Canada, we must first ask ourselves what the purpose of such a law would be? The industry groups tell us that these locks are meant to protect against piracy, and that anti-circumvention legislation is therefore required to protect their intellectual property. If the goal is to prevent consumers from copying software, movies, and music, then we need pass no further legislation, for these acts are already illegal in this country (with the obvious exception of the private copying act of 1998). The act of copying such intellectual property is already illegal, and there is little sense in making it "more illegal".
DRM has extremely dire side effects. DRM stands for "Digital Rights Management", and that's exactly what it does; it controls what rights a consumer does and does not have over the media the consumer has purchased. But these are rights determined by the content provider, not by law, and the revocation of these rights becomes the province of private industry, which has already demonstrated a total disregard for consumer rights.
For starters, there exists no DRM scheme which does not also generate vendor lock-in as a side effect; music purchased on Apple's iTunes Music Store can only be played on computers running Apple's iTunes software or on Apple's iPod line of portable music players. Some DRM schemes, such as Microsoft's now defunct "PlaysForSure", are lice sensed to multiple manufacturers. However, even though you can buy multiple players from different hardware manufacturers that support PlaysForSure, when purchasing one of these players you are essentially locking yourself into Microsoft's music store.
Microsoft's PlaysForSure is an excellent example, by the way, of the problems inherent in a DRM scheme, because Microsoft has recently closed its authentication servers down [4]. This means that millions of people who bought music from Microsoft can no longer move that content to new audio players. If these consumers loose their existing audio players, or their players or computers break or are sold, then all of the music these people have purchased - music which they own - will be irretrievably lost. The only option these people have is to buy the media they already own a second time.
By enshrining digital locks and DRM in law, you ultimately give license to the content industries to write their own laws where copyright is concerned, because any rights given to consumers, even rights given explicitly under law, can be revoked by the application of a digital lock. Rights such as the "first sale doctrine", the ability to enjoy content on the player of your choice, the ability to format shift media from one format to another; all of these are taken away by almost every existing DRM scheme.
Many DRM schemes, especially in the realm of computer software, do not explicitly enumerate which rights they revoke in a clear and transparent manner to the consumer. Many times consumers are not even aware of the restrictions imposed upon them until they attempt to breach those restrictions. Rarely are consumers trying to breach these restrictions with criminal intent.
It is also important to point out that most such electronic locks are ultimately pointless; as soon as a single user bypasses the lock and posts the content to the internet, the content can easily be copied by all. Such locks will also always be easy to bypass because, from a technical standpoint, the underlying principal of such a lock is inherently flawed. All DRM schemes are based on encryption. Encryption, at it's most fundamental,
Video casettes only??? (Score:5, Informative)
-http://www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/rp01158e.html
That's a bit obtuse. Why does it matter what media format the source is on?
As the bill stands, format shifting from old laser discs or Video-CDs would be illegal. Format shifting DVDs to your video iPod would be illegal (even for the few DVDs without copy protection). Once DVD becomes an obsolete format, it would still be illegal to format shift your content onto more recent media.
Format shifting music DVDs onto your iPod also would be illegal (which totally sucks).
What about the "media levy" in Canada? (Score:5, Insightful)
If this gets passed, it would mean that the primary use of CD/DVD recordable media would be for data backup purposes of which the Recording Industry has absolutely no involvement and the excuse that the media could be used for private duplication is out the window since it would be illegal to do so.
I bet the Recording Industry would back off if they knew their "free money" from media cds were cutoff.
They sold us out (Score:5, Interesting)
How much longer before we give up the pretense of being a sovereign nation? Out of economic considerations, our foreign policy is written with US interests in mind, and now the same can be said of our domestic policy. We have a branch plan economy, and now a branch-plant government. I know it has been that way for some time, but previous governments at least tried to give the appearance of being a little independent from time to time. I guess with Tony Blair retired and John Howard defeated, Steven Harper has chosen to make his move and become the US' new bitch^H^H^H^H^Hbest friend.
OK, that is perhaps a tad over-dramatic, but it is clear that this proposed law was not written with my best interests at heart. The same cannot be said of the US-based media cartels who probably had more to do with the authoring of the bill than any particular civil servant or party hack.
I would like for the opposition to show some spine and vote this bill down, but I doubt that will happen. The Liberals have abstained from so many votes on issues they claim to be fundamentally opposed in order to not cause an election. As a result, I do not believe that they have the moral authority to vote down government legislation until after the next election.
It's not like the Liberals would have done anything different - this legislation is quite similar to what Sam Bulte was preparing when she had that ministry.
It sucks when your nation's legislation is written by foreign corporations, for the benefit of foreign corporations - and it really doesn't matter which party introduces it. I fully expect the government to claim that this is a great day for the Canadian consumer and how the enhanced copyright protection will benefit any Canadian shareholders of those foreign media cartels. It probably isn't good politics to tell the voters the truth at the best of times...
BTW - I wonder if the phrase "public domain" appears even once in this bill which supposedly modernizes and improves copyright?
Re:Drawing Fire (Score:5, Insightful)
If only it was that simple. The opposition is in disarray, which is why a minority Conservative government dares to pull crap like this. Their main opposition, the Liberal Party, doesn't have the money or leadership to fight an election, so they'll pretty much agree to anything in order to dodge one. The other two major parties, the Bloc and NDP, don't have enough seats to do anything about it. The Conservatives will find a way to make the vote a matter of confidence, the Liberals will fold, and that will be that. It has nothing to do with what the majority of Canadians want.
Parent
Re:Canada is Already a Police State (Score:5, Interesting)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_speech_by_country#Canada [wikipedia.org]
2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
Due to section 1 of the Charter, the so-called limitation clause, Canada's freedom of expression is not absolute and can be limited under certain situations. Section 1 of the Charter states:
The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. (emphasis added)
This section is double edged. First it implies that a limitation on freedom of speech prescribed in law can be permitted if it can be justified as being a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. Conversely, it implies that a restriction can be invalidated if it cannot be shown to be a reasonable limit in a free and democratic society. The former case has been used to uphold limits on legislation which are used to prevent hate speech and obscenity.[citation needed]
In the landmark Supreme Court of Canada case R. v. Zundel (1992), the court struck down a provision in the Criminal Code of Canada that prohibited publication of false information or news, stating that it violated section 2(b) of the Charter.
In April 29, 2004, Bill C-250 was passed which includes as hate speech propaganda against people based on their sexual orientation. It is now illegal to publicly incite hatred against people based on their colour, race, religion, ethnic origin, and sexual orientation. However, under section 319 on hate speech, a person cannot be convicted of hate speech "if the person can establish that the statements made are true."
Other laws that protect freedom of speech in Canada, and did so, to a limited extent, before the Charter was enacted in 1982, include the Implied Bill of Rights and the Canadian Bill of Rights.
Charter Of Rights And Freedoms [wikipedia.org]
Bill C-250 [wikipedia.org]
Parent
Re:We have to stop C-61 cold. (Score:5, Interesting)
Wait for the look of utter horror to crystallize on their faces, and then you can recruit them into the cause.
It's amazing how fast they go from "meh, it's not really something I'm interested in" to "holy hell, not my Simon!"
Parent