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.
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)
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 en
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
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: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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."
that loading the program on puttin the cd in, Sony tried that shit already and got raped majorly for their effort's. they can't install anything on
Re:Mac and Linux users... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Mac and Linux users... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (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/
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They aren't idiots, but highly paid professionals. Presumably paid by the same corporations who paid for this law.
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
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Well, so would anyone with a damned shift key or who has configured their Windows boxes to not automatically run software on a CD when it is installed.
So, it would become illegal to not accept the defaults as laid down for us by Microsoft, and which likely result in a less secure system as you are more likely to be affected by Sony rootkits etc.
Me, I say fuck 'em. I buy all of my CDs. I rip them to MP3 using FreeBSD or iTunes. I play them on whatever damned devi
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 th
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)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Interesting)
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.
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Funny)
pretty please? we promise to buy lots of maple syrup
honest we will
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Insightful)
It's our own problem if we don't take advantage of the opportunity.
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Funny)
I am not sure if can handle that one.
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.
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
It would be nice if "the leader of the opposition" actually did his fucking job.
Re:Liberals (Score:4, Informative)
The Liberals were in power under Jean Chretien from 1993 to 2003, when Paul Martin replaced him. Two things happened around this time. First, Chretien passed a campaign-finance reform bill that banned contributions from corporations and unions. Second, a major scandal broke that was dubbed the sponsorship scandal, as it was revealed Liberal-friendly advertising agencies in the province of Quebec had been awarded numerous government advertising contracts for doing effectively no work, and passing sums of money back to the Liberals as donations. One such case was, literally, an envelope full of cash passed to a Liberal party member in an Italian restaurant.
The Liberals had relied heavily on corporate donors during their time in power and did not have much in place for "grassroots" fundraising, so the campaign finance reform crippled their fundraising abilities. This remains true today; the Liberals are consistently out-fundraised by a huge margin by the Conservatives, who have very solid grassroots fundraising. I think in the last quarter, even the NDP raised more cash than the Liberals. The Liberals have still not managed to fully pay off their debts from their 2006 leadership convention. Bottom line: the Conservatives are flush with cash, the Liberals are broke. The Liberals simply can't afford an election.
The fallout from the sponsorship scandal crushed Liberal fortunes in Quebec and allowed the Conservatives to make significant inroads in the 2006 election. Selecting Dion as leader, who is not popular in nationalist parts of Quebec from his time as constitutional affairs minister under Chretien, has compounded the Liberal problem. Outside of Montreal, the Liberals are polling very badly in Quebec, behind both the Conservatives and Bloc Quebecois, with the NDP nipping at their heels. Even in Montreal, recent polls are suggesting once-Liberal strongholds may be up for grabs. The Liberals have historically been weak in western Canada, and need to win large numbers of seats in both Quebec and Ontario to form government. As of today, the Liberals simply can't win in Quebec.
The final problem the Liberals have is they have transitioned very poorly from government to opposition. Often dubbed Canada's "natural governing party", the Liberals seem to have forgotten how to formulate policy when they are not governing. Much of their performance in opposition has been taken up with blustering about alleged Conservative scandals, rather than articulating an alternate vision of how to run the country.
So in a nutshell, our official opposition is a party that can't afford to trigger an election it can't win on policies it doesn't have. And the Liberals know it. Hence they huff and puff about opposing the Conservatives, but won't pull the trigger.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Liberals (Score:5, Insightful)
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."
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?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Write Your MP (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
A small piece of hope (Score:5, Informative)
Re:A small piece of hope (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
We have to stop C-61 cold. (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
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!"
Re: (Score:2)
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
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: (Score:3, Informative)
2. The fact that this bill does not cover the laptop seizure, but is in fact ACTA. This is FUD by misdirection.
3. Bring up the lack of consumer protection.
4. Most importantly, tell them that this is the thing deciding your vote. Make sure that your MP knows that he will lose your vote to another party if he does not vote against this. This is the only thing that will change their min
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
We need to contact the MSM (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:We need to contact the MSM (Score:5, Informative)
Re:We need to contact the MSM (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Drawing Fire (Score:2)
Hey, Canada keeps telling their southern neighbor how superior they are in all regards. Here's a way to show it by not being led by the nose by the USA.
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
I may not agree with your politics, but I admire your ethics.
Rather than abstaining, you might want to consider "parking" your vote with the Greens. The North American species is a lot less socialist than the European one. And depending on the riding, you might throw a good screwing into any one of the major parties. If you look at the last three by-elections, the Greens took votes primarily from a different party two of the three ridings, and picked up a little from each in the third. (I don't have t
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: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Political Theatre (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (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: (Score:3, Interesting)
Canada is Already a Police State (Score:2, Informative)
Our Human Rights Commissions (provincial and national) investigate "crimes" like criticizing other people's religious beliefs, opposing gay marriage or refusing to participate in a gay marriage ceremony, and making non-violent racist statements. The extrajudicial tribunals can charge people with these crimes as a result of a complaint being made by anyone-- no
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]
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."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
There are three ways I know of to bring about such a change.
1. Have our legislators see the benefi
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.
On purpose? (Score:2)
Hasn't this happened before? I thought the idea in Canada was that they propose a DMCA-like law, but even worse, simply so that it gets tossed and nothing even like it can be proposed anymore. Then later, when some copyright-nazi comes around complaining, they just point to the history books and say, "Hey, see! What are you complaining aboot? We tried to make such a law before but no one would pass it, eh."
I might call it the Jack Thompson approach. You make sure the side you oppose has some example in
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.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The bill still has to go through committee (LOL that will be fun) and back to the house
It's timing is designed to avoid going to committee. By scheduling the 2nd reading for the fall, they force the committee meetings to be during the summer, when everyone's on break.
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...
What's a device and what can I do with it? (Score:2, Interesting)
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,
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Call/mail your MP. Send my letter if you want. (Score:3, Informative)
I always thought Canada was a great (Score:2)
Re: (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 s
Stupid old politics party (Score:2)
$500 fine per download, $20,000 per upload. Of what is nominally a $0.99 or less item. This is not constitutionally valid as it is a violation of fundamental justice. Still it looks pretty normal for the new police state to act ignoring citize
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?
I live in Calgary... (Score:4, Interesting)
Are there any other Calgarians who would like to protest this at his office? And with Stampede coming, would anyone like to join me at his pancake breakfast on 5 July -- some place where he can't hide from us?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
That women who has been pushing it (Tanja Karpela) is quite a big joke here, and she just blogs about stuff like how our capitol city should get more "for elite only" clothing stores. We're in good hands.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
They are already taking the guns away from legal gun owners in record numbers up here.
Welcome to the police state.
In true Canadian fashon we will whine and bitch for a bit and then grab our ankles.
I'd like to see Canada shut down all oil exports to the US until softwood lumber, beef exports and your unwelcome interf
Re: (Score:2)