Canada's Proposed DMCA-Style Law Draws Fire 313
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.
Write Your MP (Score:5, Insightful)
We have to stop C-61 cold. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:A small piece of hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Canada, eh? (Score:1, Insightful)
But seriously, this is a scary thought to see a country changing it's laws to match this new digital age. If this gets through it could cause a ripple effect in other countries.
While I realize the likelihood of a law such as this would be difficult to pass in the US, you know there's going to be a "monkey see, monkey do" attitude and there will probably be a bit more of a stronger force trying to push similar bills through Congress.
We need to contact the MSM (Score:5, Insightful)
Legal music downloads in Canada? (Score:1, Insightful)
I was thinking yesterday after the discussion about whether it is legal to purchase music from Russian allofmp3.com. It was stated that if you actually purchased the music outside of the US then brought it back without, it would be legal.
What if I went up to Canada, purchased some blank-media including the music tax and brought them back with me to the US. Legally, I've already paid for any music downloads I do to put on those CD's, and those rights were obtained outside of the US. Right?
Draconian Legislation. (Score:3, Insightful)
Big publishers are buying draconian legislation because only that will preserve their place in the world. They have gotten away with as much as they have because they control broadcast media, but fewer people are paying attention to that [technologyreview.com]. We are in a race to save the internet before big publishers can destroy it. They demand the same kinds of control over the internet that they had over print and broadcast. That is, the ability to limit what can be shared regardless of who creates it. It's not about entertainment and "piracy", it's about control. The DMCA gives them channel control and the nastier provision give them ability to harass other publishers with cease and desist letters. Windows and Mac have have "copy protection" built in that enforces the rest.
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.
Worse is better. (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Mac and Linux users... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Political Theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Insightful)
It's our own problem if we don't take advantage of the opportunity.
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.
Re:Political Theatre (Score:2, Insightful)
Some copyright protection reform is obviously needed, but only something that does not villify consumers, make a mockery of fair use or bend to the US **AA lobbying agenda.
Re:Mac and Linux users... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mac and Linux users... (Score:2, Insightful)
not allowing auto-run only delays it from starting as soon as a CD is inserted.
Plus, an autorun.ini basically just points windows to A) the icon to display in "My Computer", and B) the setup.exe
Setup.exe when run will still use the DRM stuff, as for movies and music, well thats up to the player, WMP (et al) will still phone home/look for a key if the media its about to play is asking for it, regardless of wether it was "autorun" or not.
Re:We have to stop C-61 cold. (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
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
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.
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,
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.
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.
Re:Write Your MP (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:This bill is not designed to pass (Score:3, Insightful)
So it will hit it's 2nd reading before anyone has a chance to discuss it. As for the senate, Harper will just attach it to an appropriations bill, and voila! Instant confidence motion, which means the Liberals will let it pass...
Re:I always thought Canada was a great (Score:3, Insightful)
Canada's governmental system has one advantage over the US: we don't radicalize quickly. Because a government falls if defeated on a major bill, the laws that get tabled generally are much tamer than their American counterparts. This law, sadly, is the exception to the rule.
Canada is pretty great. I'm currently working in Seattle, but grew up in Vancouver, and despite the similar climate, the culture is worlds apart. People in Canada are just... *nicer*, I have to say. They're more polite, they actually say thank you sometimes... I can't count the number of times the employee across the counter here in Seattle seemed surprised when I thanked them. What's wrong with you people? Seriously, I can't count the number of times people at Starbucks just grab their brew and go, without so much as acknowledging the guy who just made it for you.
Re:Liberals (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be nice if "the leader of the opposition" actually did his fucking job.
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.
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.
Re:Current Goverment Talking points (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Mac and Linux users... (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Twitter obsessed fools: please note (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Draconian Legislation. (Score:3, Insightful)
RE: technological measures (Score:3, Insightful)
After about an hour, I realised that the "technological measure" definition probably refers to the "effective technological measures" described in the 1997 WIPO treaty.
Article 11: Obligations concerning Technological Measures [wipo.int]
The existence of legal protection for "effective Technological Measures" does not necessarily imply any actually exist. Technological Measures MUST be effective for legal protection, otherwise, it would be impossible to know if you are circumventing them.
Regards,
James Phillips
Re:The Sci-Fi Present (Score:3, Insightful)
There are three ways I know of to bring about such a change.
1. Have our legislators see the benefits of such a change and then enact it. Since the two party system benefits no one more than the people it elects, this is highly unlikely.
2. Campaign among the general public, and make this such a major issue that political candidates will need to embrace it in order to be elected. Unfortunately, getting even a small percentage of the general public to care about this issue and to unite behind it is also highly unlikely.
3. Revolt. This can only happen if things get much worse. As much as people complain about politics, they are making "good money" as you say and are too comfortable for anything drastic.
There you have it - three options, all unrealistic. Two parties are probably here to stay, and so is all the corruption and corporate influence that goes with it. God, what a shame.