Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada News

SOPA-style Amendments Dropped From C-11; DRM Provisions Not 50

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the our-more-sensible-northern-neighbors dept.
New submitter Ashenkase writes "Michal Geist reviews what stayed and what was rejected by the Bill C-11 Committee Review. Looks like SOPA-style amendments are dropped except Digital Locks. There is still a chance for Canadians to have their voices heard before third reading: 'The Bill C-11 legislative committee concluded its clause-by-clause review yesterday as eight government amendments were added to the bill and all opposition amendments were defeated. The amendments included an expanded enabler provision and some modest tinkering to other elements of the bill. There are still several steps needed before the bill passes including third reading at the House of Commons, Senate review, and ultimately royal assent, but Canadian copyright reform is well on its way to completion before the summer starts. In the days leading up to the clause-by-clause review, many focused on three key issues: no SOPA-style amendments such as website blocking or warrantless disclosure of information, maintaining the fair dealing balance found in the bill, and amending the digital lock provisions. By that standard, the changes could have been a lot worse. The government expanded the enabler provision, though not as broadly as CIMA requested. Virtually all other copyright lobby demands — website blocking, notice-and-takedown, iPod tax, copyright term extension, disclosure of subscriber information — were rejected. Moreover, the provisions supported by consumer and education groups including user generated content protection, time shifting, format shifting, backup copies, Internet provider liability, and statutory damages reform were left untouched. This represents a major victory for the many Canadians and groups such as Open Media that spoke out on these issues.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

SOPA-style Amendments Dropped From C-11; DRM Provisions Not

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @12:21PM (#39353801)

    Our Dear Leader will just try again in a few months. He won't stop until his corporate buddies get everything they want.

    • Don't be a moron (Score:4, Insightful)

      by jpmorgan (517966) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @01:11PM (#39354525) Homepage

      Whatever you may think of him, we're four years away from a federal election and Harper's Conservatives control parliament the C-11 committee. If Stephen Harper want to give his "corporate buddies" "everything they want," he wouldn't need to "try again in a few months." The amendments would have been approved, and the bill would pass the house of commons. In fact, C-11 is a reintroduction of a bill that died on the order paper last parliament, so they wouldn't have even needed to put them in as amendments: "everything they want" would have been introduced with the rest of the bill at second reading. Either way, any public outcry would be drowned out in a few weeks by the forthcoming budget debate.

      Don't be a moron. It's not an endearing quality.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        I invite you to read the HOWTO on boiling frogs. It has so many applications.

      • by Anonymous Coward

        Only a moron would think that this is the end of it and that Little Hitler/Harper won't try this and worse again. Both he and the conservatives know it is a balancing act; selling out Canadian's freedoms and getting reelected.

        You can eat your words when they table again all the items they couldn't bamboozle through this time. They will try again and again until they can slide it through without a fuss. Next time they will probably package it with other items like "all newborn Canadians must be tattooed with

    • by WebCowboy (196209)

      There should be a "-1 senseless partisan rhetoric" moderation option. After just a few years of minorty-party rule political discourse in Canada has descended to playground fistfights and bickering--quite sad really.

      How soon people forget what it is like to have a majority government in parliament. "PM Harper is a tyrant who will stop at nothing to impose his hidden agenda/corporate lobby buddies wishes/kitten-killing campaign/etc" blah blah blah. Same could've been said about Cretien, or Mulroney, or Tr

    • by green1 (322787)

      Why try again? they got everything they actually wanted, AND made people think that they didn't. It's win-win for everyone... well, except the general population, but we don't count anymore.

      This is classic, they ask for a thousand things, and settle for 500, meanwhile the media reports how the grassroots campaigns won and that consumers "only" lost half their rights. That's not a victory for us!

  • by ickleberry (864871) <web@pineapple.vg> on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @12:22PM (#39353817) Homepage
    Imagine if a stand-alone DRM supporting law was created in a place, there would be uproar.

    Don't be happy until this crap is completely dead.
  • parts of democracy aren't totally useless! As for DRM, as they have been in the past, the free markets will defeat them. Everyone knows that DRM just makes products worse and doesn't affect pirates or theft at all.
    • Other than iTunes, there have been practically NO instances of drm being removed from any service, in fact everything is moving in exactly the OPPOSITE direction. Remember when you could tape your favorite TV show while you were on vacation using any off the shelf VCR? Now cable companies (at least mine is) are heavily pushing digital television which SURPRISE is 100% encrypted. They downplay this by saying "But the PVR does everything your VCR did and more!", but you are required to use THEIR pvr. This mea
  • by MatrixCubed (583402) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @01:20PM (#39354631) Homepage

    Dear Anonymous Coward,

    Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Lawful Access tools in our proposed legislation. I am always happy to respond to the questions and concerns of my constituents.

    Our Government is strongly committed to ensuring that Canadians’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are respected.

    The new lawful access tools proposed in our legislation will not derogate from existing safeguards and privacy protections. The need to respect a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, as protected under the Charter, always guides law reform. Such authority will continue to be exercised bearing in mind privacy rights under other legislation, such as the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

    Police will still be required to obtain judicial authorizations in order to obtain information under our legislation and law enforcement agencies will not be able to intercept private communications or obtain transmission data without being authorized to do so by law. Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge.

    While technology has advanced significantly over the past four decades, the legal frameworks and investigative tools available to the police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) have not kept pace with this evolution. This proposed legislation would provide law enforcement and CSIS with the modern investigative tools they need to help fight crime and thwart national security threats.

    The investigative tools created in this legislation preserve existing safeguards, such as requirements for warrants, court authorizations or other lawful authority to target specified communications. They are time-limited, and nothing put forward in the proposed legislation would reduce the existing safeguards.

    Thank you again for taking the time to write regarding this issue. If you have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact my office.

    Yours sincerely,

    Hon. Gary Goodyear, P.C., M.P.

    Cambridge-North Dumfries

    • by Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @01:25PM (#39354739)
      See, this is why I get upset when people say "Write your MP!" when we ask what we can do about shit like this. What do you do when writing your MP just gets you a form letter completely ignoring your points? It's clear they don't/won't listen.
      • by Earache65 (681180)
        Agreed, I'm in a hard core Conservative riding and wouldn't expect even a show of understanding on issues like this. Personally, I think most of the more vile amendments were used as smoke-screen to make us think we "won" something, and that the DRM locks are a minor concession that we can live with. But we know who the groups are that proposed those amendments (see Geist's blog) and the real backlash should be directed at them.
      • by AmbushBug (71207)

        The point of writing your MP is to let them know that you oppose/support what they are doing. If they get flooded with letters they might reconsider their stance on the issue. The repsonse you get is irrelevent.

  • by Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) on Wednesday March 14, 2012 @01:28PM (#39354789)
    Just to clarify, as much as I hate the DRM provisions, and as stupid as they're being about them, the SOPA-style provisions were never in the bill in the first place. The copyright lobbyists wanted them put in, but they were denied in these hearings.
  • by Anonymous Coward

    It's still stupid that even though I can do X because of "fair dealing", it's illegal to do X if I have to break "digital locks" in order to do it. This is the same lunacy that made the DMCA in the US so ridiculous. When is it going to sink in that none of the format-shifting or other provisions that are legal in the proposed bill make any sense unless you can legally *exercise* those rights regardless of what protections the copyright holder places on the material? It's like saying "Yes, you can legally

Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"

Working...