Slashdot Log In
Canadians Battling Proposed Canadian DMCA
Posted by
kdawson
on Sun Aug 17, 2008 06:24 PM
from the leave-us-a-commons-eh dept.
from the leave-us-a-commons-eh dept.
An anonymous reader writes "CTV reports on how Canadians are fighting back against the Canadian DMCA. Led by Michael Geist, the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group is nearing 90,000 members. There are local chapters, a YouTube contest, wikis, and people writing letters and organizing rallies against the copyright bill. Geist said, 'When you get tens of thousands of Canadians speaking out like this, there's big political risk for any political party who chooses to ignore it.'"
Related Stories
Submission: Canadians Fighting Back Against Canadian DMCA by Anonymous Coward
[+]
Your Rights Online: Canadian DMCA Proposal About To Die 186 comments
An anonymous reader writes "Like the previous Bill C-60 before it, the proposed Bill C-61 that would bring DMCA-like laws to Canada is poised to die on the order table, never to receive a vote, as the current minority government falls. An election call is expected in days. Everybody expects that some form of these laws will be back yet again (third time's a charm?). There are too many interests pushing for change to let it go. But here's a chance for Canadians to influence politicians about it in an election campaign, and hopefully strike a better balance. And for those of you in the rest of the world who are laboring under a DMCA-like copyright law, let's hear your stories about why such laws are a good or bad idea, and if bad, how you would amend the law to make it tolerable. With the polls probably on Oct. 14th, Canadians will be looking for a few good ideas."
[+]
Politics: Canada Election Result Bad News For DMCA Opponents 311 comments
An anonymous reader writes "For those with a stake in the opposition of Jim Prentice's C-61, the Canadian DMCA, this previous week's election results will be displeasing. The Conservative Party, which promised to reintroduce the DMCA if elected, gained 19 seats this election, mostly at the expense of the flagging liberal party, a mere 12 short of a majority government. The increase in Conservative representation, as well as the relatively low profile of this issue amidst other, more pressing concerns, increases the likelihood that the son of C-61 will come to fruition. On a positive note, the number of MPs supporting Geist's copyright pledge has increased to 34. Given the Conservative Party's historic disregard of public opinion, however, the efforts of the copyright-pledge MPs will have to rally the full opposition across three major parties in order to defeat the bill. A mere 12 MPs now stand between the Canadian public and the MAFIAA's hungry maw."
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.
No Worries (Score:5, Insightful)
Prentice and the Tories don't need to worry about voters. I'm sure they've been paid handsomely by American media giants for their co-operation.
Re:No Worries (Score:4, Insightful)
But that money only keeps rolling for as long as they have their finger on the button. Ya know, despite everything else, the final say in who gets to take the bribes is with the voters.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:No Worries (Score:5, Insightful)
That may be true in the US, but in Canada the general public seems to put a little more effort into elections than just voting for the person who has the most signs on front lawns.
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:5, Informative)
Really? We didn't even break through 70% of eligible voters showing up in the last election. In some parts of the country it was a lot less. Maybe Canadians are slightly less apathetic than their US counterparts, but only slightly.
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:4, Insightful)
My precise thoughts about encouraging everyone to vote, even if they have no clue about what they are voting on! The obligation should be to find out what they are voting on, what the likely actions of the proposals are, and THEN cast an educated vote.
Having people who don't have a clue is part of how we got gw bush.
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:5, Interesting)
We would like for everyone to inform themselves and make an educated decision about the candidates,
I like to think that I'm a reasonably well-informed and educated person. I take an interest (greater or lesser in a great many things, including politics and the world around us.
I have, in several elections, gone to the polling station, taken my ballot to the little booth and after unfolding it, I re-fold it and return it to the clerk for her to put into the ballot box. I vote, but I make no mark on the ballot at all if, in my opinion, no candidate is worthy of receiving my vote.
And I am Canadian.
Parent
Educated and Informed -- about issues. (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:4, Insightful)
When you have compulsory voting politicians are forced to address issues that matter to their electorate (rather than just the subset who are voters) and people who otherwise would cynically ignore elections are forced to pay attention to their choices and how they will be affected by them.
Speaking from experience living in a country that has compulsory voting your opinion is incorrect. Just like non-compulsory voting you have blocs who are dedicated to one party or another and rarely change based on the issues raised at election. Indeed this steady bloc who are forced to vote makes it much harder for a seat to change hands as the candidate or party has to really tick off the electorate for those rusted-on supporters to change their mind and help tumble the incumbent out of power. (Also known as a protest vote). Hence with compulsory voting apart from the protest vote, the other way for change to occur is for the demographic of the electorate to change. Eg, for agricultural seats to acquire a more cosmpolitan community.
Non compulsory elections seem to be won by those who can encourage the largest number of people to get out there and vote.
I'm not sure which system is better.
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:5, Funny)
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:4, Insightful)
I've actually some talk of "None of the Above" as a choice, and if that gets the plurality of votes, then a new election has to be run with a different slate of candidates. In Canada, at least, one of the big flaws is that the political parties hold far too much power over individual candidates, and I think allowing the possibility that the chosen candidate might not only lose, but might actually lose to "None of the Above" might reduce the sometimes very unholy power that political parties hold over candidates.
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:5, Insightful)
A fact that I am infinitely grateful for. Electing judges and district attorneys, for example, is pure madness.
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:5, Insightful)
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, they say you can't buy votes but that's not really true and you know it. Who cares if 2000 knowledgable voters get pissed at you if 5000 clueless voters vote for you instead with your new campaigning budget? It doesn't really matter where and why the vote comes from, a vote is as good as any other. People don't want to hear the truth, they want to hear how you'll make their lives so much better so it's tough to call someone on talking bullshit - even when they're not pimping some lobbyist agenda they are telling you sweet, sweet lies.
Parent
Re: (Score:3)
The French-speaking media has been *very* quiet on the issue: I saw a 2 article written in 3 months. At least in both cases they gave equal time to Micheal Geist and CMPAA / CRIA
Nobody around me seems to care about the issue... Yet it will have a lot of very real consequences on own you can use stuff you own.
The sad thing is: this law is presented has the one that will stop illegal downloading
Re:No Worries (Score:5, Informative)
1. William Davis, Tory premier of Ontario, who after giving full funding to Catholic schools, was tossed out of office after 40 years of consecutive Conservative rule.
2. Brian Mulroney, Ronny Reagans buddy, after introducing the Gouge and Screw Tax, had his MAJORITY government reduced to 2 seats in the next election.
These tories have been warned, enact this legislation and they will be destroyed politically. Harper won't be able to run for village mayor after we're through with him.
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:5, Insightful)
These tories have been warned, enact this legislation and they will be destroyed politically. Harper won't be able to run for village mayor after we're through with him.
But it does show in majority governments in Canada, they are term dictators. The senate is nothing more than old patronage buddies collecting big bucks to rubber stamp things. But fortunately we are in a minority government situation which makes the dictatorship more tenuous.
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:4, Informative)
Yeah, but in the meanwhile, they will have enacted it, and you can bet your arse the liberals won't scrap it afterwards. After all, they haven't scrapped the GST as they promised...
(The GST is a classic case of ideologic stupidity. What the government did was replace a hidden 12% tax with a visible 7% tax, but they so badly explained it that people got to hate it).
Parent
Re:No Worries (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually in Canada politicians are not allowed to take donations from corporations and individuals are limited to small donations.
The problem here is not money it's the previous government signing a treaty that makes something like the DMCA a requirement and the US ambassador lobbying on behalf of the RIAA/MPAA threatening to damage Canada's economy with a trade war.
The other real problem is that Prentice doesn't have enough of a backbone.
Parent
Political Repurcussions (Score:5, Interesting)
Does anyone know who in the US elected government caused the US DMCA to happen?
So, if even slashdot users can't remember who caused the original DMCA to happen, what hope is there that any Canadian politicians would be worried?
Re:Political Repurcussions (Score:4, Insightful)
The problem is that this doesn't seem to have any escape path. Or rather, it doesn't matter what side you vote. The (new) Republicans are for big government and cracking down on whatever perceived crime exists, not to mention that "those intarwebs" and the uncontrolable spread of information, opinion and propaganda is usually not really something the new kind of Rep enjoys.
The Democrats otoh have traditionally good ties with Hollywood and the media.
In other words, you're fucked either way. The DMCA is on both sides' agenda.
Parent
Re:Political Repurcussions (Score:5, Insightful)
That's because there really is only one side in US politics, the one with the money.
As long as TV advertising is the way to get voters this will not change.
Parent
Canada is a democracy (Score:5, Informative)
If Canadian politicians don't respond to the wishes of their constituents, they have the option of replacing them. The current ruling party, for example, is only about 20 years old.
It's not comparable to the US system where Democrats have a monopoly on the left and Republicans on the right.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The current Governing party, the Conservative Party of Canada, is only fiver years old.
The Progressive Conservative party and the Canadian Alliance merged in October of 2003.
Re:Canada is a democracy (Score:5, Informative)
The Reform Party was founded in 1987. Sure, they change their name every 5 years or so, but still.
Parent
Re:Canada is a democracy (Score:4, Insightful)
And to those of you who think this is rhetorical:
In the 60's, one presidential candidate supported a guaranteed income of 1,200$ per year minimum to every citizen, regardless of whether they worked or not. (That was enough to buy a new Mustang convertible back then). That same candidate supported government price fixing for all major commodities, and worked hard to establish closer ties with a major communist country once elected. That candidate had a plan to fix up decaying inner cities that would have assigned up to five union carpenters, electricians and plumbers just to training roles for each new laborer inducted from the local areas into those unions, with most of the actual work being done by the local hires (and this plan failed to be implemented only because the unions wanted even more trainers per new hire and another politician promised them up to a 17 to 1 ratio). That same candidate ran on a promise to pull troops out of an unpopular war, and did so. He set time tables for withdrawing and winding down the war in many cases, and was widely characterized as being out of touch to the far, far right when he insisted upon keeping even some of his plans for withdrawing secret.
That candidate was Richard Nixon, the guy seen then as moderately right of center only because Barry Goldwater was 'even farther right'. By todays standards, Nixon would score about as far left as Dennis Kucinich or Ted Kennedy, maybe even farther.
Parent
Re:Political Repurcussions (Score:4, Informative)
Actually, the wiki article on the DMCA says "Passed on October 12, 1998 by a unanimous vote in the U.S. Senate and signed into law by President Bill Clinton on October 28, 1998" so I must have been mistaken. I thought I had heard something around the time of the MPAA vs 2600 case, but apparently not.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Perhaps I can explain why you recall a level of sneaky-ness. At the time it got very little attention, as everyone was breathlessly awaiting more news about BC getting a blow job or diddling Monica with cigars... Certainly the dog and pony show drew attention away from the geeks crying foul.
Facebook group counts ... (Score:5, Interesting)
Have we really entered an age where the number of people who join facebook groups are used as some kind of measure?
Half the people I know on facebook join whatever the hell their friends join, or click anything they can to get the alerts to go away.
Seriously - really?
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
90000 is a far cry from such popular groups as:
"If one million people join I will name my son Batman"
"If ninety thousand people join I will shave the slashdot logo into my pubes"
"Forty million people for anti furry discrimination"
In this modern age, having less than a hundred thousand indicates that nobody really cares.
its for their own good (Score:4, Informative)
The government will just ignore them and do what they want, as the people are too stupid to know what is right.
( yes thats sarcasm, but its also what the 'man' will do if given a chance )
No conspiracy theory here (Score:5, Insightful)
Despite the conspiracy theories you're likely to hear about this, the reason why the DMCA sailed through Congress is the same reason it'll sail through Canada's legislative process... media companies are responsible for a nice chunk of GNP (and whatever they call it in Canada), and neither side, liberal or conservative, is willing give up that wealth. And both sides believe that things like high technology for consumers and piracy is a danger to their broadcasters and publishers.
The reason opponents are going to lose on this is that all major parties will be on board with the copyright holders. And average voters don't give a rat's ass about copyright reform crusades.
Re:No conspiracy theory here (Score:4, Informative)
Parent
Re:No conspiracy theory here (Score:5, Informative)
Actually in Canada the official opposition (Liberals) and our left-wing party (NDP) have come out in opposition to this bill.
That doesn't mean that the Liberals will vote against it. They may sit on their hands or run away as they have for past votes. Perhaps a historian of Canadian politics could say whether there was ever a wimpier opposition. I doubt it.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Re:No conspiracy theory here (Score:5, Insightful)
What's the point in bringing down the government if the end result is to end up where you started?
Well, some would say principles but we all know there's no room for that in politics.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Last I heard Liberals were supporting copyright reform, including the previous Bill C-60 that they themselves tabled before their government came crashing down.
Please provide proof otherwise?
To quote the Letter the Parent Linked: (Score:4, Informative)
Liberal MP Marlene Jennings, who serves as the party's deputy house leader, has been sending the following letter to concerned constituents about Bill C-61. The letter, which is the most substantive that I have seen, is posted in its entirety with permission.
Thank you for your letter concerning Bill C-61, An Act to amend the Copyright Act. Over the last few months I have made a concerted effort to better inform myself of all of the issues associated with copyright reform in Canada. In this vein, I joined the Intellectual Property (IP), Anti-Counterfeiting and Anti-Piracy Parliamentary Caucus. Through the meetings and consultations held by this group I came to the conclusion that reform of our copyright legislation will, I hope, have the following principles at its core:
1) Anti-circumvention measures and penalties must be linked to the efforts of those who violate copyright for commercial purposes, and not just the technology itself;
2) Provisions for flexible fair dealing. Fair dealing creates a limited number of exceptions, including private study, research, criticism, review and news reporting to charges of infringement.
3) It would also incorporate a fair and well defined 'notice and notice' system, which involves a notification from a copyright holder - often involving movies, software or music - claiming that a subscriber has made available or downloaded content without authorization on file sharing systems. The Internet Service Provider forwards the notification to the subscriber but takes no other action - it does not pass along the subscriber's personal information, remove the content from its system, or cancel the subscriber's service. It falls to the subscriber to remove the infringing content (if indeed it is infringing) voluntarily.
In assessing the degree to which Bill C-61 incorporated these basic principles, I compared it with the previous Liberal government's proposed copyright Bill - Bill C-60 - which was introduced in June of 2005. Bill C-61 incorporates the same 'notice and notice' requirements as Bill C-60.
Though C-61 appears to offer more flexibility on fair dealing, in banning circumvention technology the means to legitimately copy or change formats is torn from the hands of legitimate users. Thus, the section of the bill banning legitimate anti-circumvention technology needs to be eliminated and replaced with something that experts in the field would feel is more appropriate in allowing a greater deal of flexibility in fair dealing. I hope that these changes will be developed during the committee's study of the bill.
In Bill C-60 (clause 27, new subsection 34.02(1)) anti-circumvention penalties required that circumvention be for the commercial purpose of infringing copyright, for example reproduction or communication of the work, whereas Bill C-61 (clause 31-new subsection 41.1(1)) prohibits circumvention in general and does not require infringement of an economic right in the work (thus circumvention alone is deemed an infringement). The bill prohibits picking the digital locks (often referred to as circumventing technological protection measures) that frequently accompany consumer products such as CDs, DVDs, and electronic books. Under the new bill, transferring music from a copy-protected CD to an iPod could violate the law. So too could efforts to play a region-coded DVD from a non-Canadian region.
Even the few exceptions to anti-circumvention measures in the bill are deceptive since the software programs needed to pick the digital lock in order to protect privacy or engage in research are prohibited. This is a part of the bill I hope will be amended when the bill gets to committee so that only deliberate infringement of commercial copyright is punished, not the possession of the technology to do so.
As you can see, this is a highly technical piece of legislation, and I will have to study it more closely. While it is my hope that the Conservatives will send this bill to committee for further study and changes b
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
The situation isn't really all that different in the States and it still got passed here. In Canada, basically you can't give more than $1000 per year to a candidate. In the US, the amount is $2300 per election (primary and general are separate). In both countries, contributions by corporations and unions are not allowed. In the US they can form PACs from their employees/members, but I'm not sure if something similar exists in Canada.
In the end though, I think it has little to do with direct bribing and mor
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
sail through Canada's legislative process...
I think you're overestimating the Canadian legislative process, since the Bill itself will be set onto the back burner for maybe the next year or so before actually passing, assuming the government doesn't dissolve into another election and will have to be backburner'd indefinitely. There was almost a couple of times just this summer a Vote of no confidence was brought up.
Liberal and Conservative are indeed the two dominant parties, but they must try their best to cater to voters from other parties (like a
Re:No conspiracy theory here (Score:5, Interesting)
Despite the conspiracy theories you're likely to hear about this, the reason why the DMCA sailed through Congress is the same reason it'll sail through Canada's legislative process... media companies are responsible for a nice chunk of GNP (and whatever they call it in Canada)
That's not really true.
The value of RIAA members' shipments (not sales) in 2007 [76.74.24.142] was $10.37 billion.
The value of MPAA members' U.S. domestic box office and home video sales in 2007 [mpaa.org] was $37.44 billion ($40.92 per person box office + $118.39 per person home video times 235 million adults).
U.S. GDP in 2007 was $13.6 trillion, so together the RIAA and MPAA comprise 0.35% of the U.S. economy. For comparison, the MP3 player market in the U.S. for 2007 [metrics2.com] was an estimated $5.4 billion. That's just MP3 players, never mind accessories, home audio systems, headphones, car stereos, etc.
If they were a Fortune 500 companies [cnn.com], the MPAA's movie-related sales would come in at #62, and the RIAA's members would come in at #256. They wield so much power because they make a disproportionately high amount of campaign donations [opensecrets.org].
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
With the way that the Tories and Libs are both gearing up for fall elections, we might just end up being lucky and seeing a far more reasonable bill show up in the 40th legislature.
It needs to be said... (Score:5, Insightful)
Michael Geist is a shining example of why academics are critically important in society - and why governments detest them. His running analysis of bill C-61 has been eloquent, straightforward and polite. He has earned a loyal following be clearly explaining what the flaws of the legislation are and how they will impact Canadians in everyday use (for example, how the Government is touting the clauses that grant timeshifting and device shifting rights while glossing over the fact that other parts of the legislation effectively neuter consumer rights where DRM is involved).
Dr. Geist's blog posts and editorials in several major Canadian newspapers encouraged me to write to several members of parliament after a lifetime of political apathy. More importantly, I've done my best to explain the legislation's flaws to others, too, in the hope that they will take action. Several have, also for the first time.
My MP is ignoring it... (Score:4, Informative)
I've written a couple of emails and talked to his office manager about the issue and asked why the Liberal party is not making this a confidence motion. It's bad legislation and bad for the country.
For anybody else in Etobicoke-Lakeshore (Toronto South-West), please drop a line to Michael Ignatieff [michaelignatieff.ca] and let him know what you think.
Thanx,
myke
Re:My MP is ignoring it... (Score:4, Interesting)
You don't want this to be a confidence motion. When you do that, there's suddenly a whole lot more riding on the passage of the bill than the actual legislation. MPs and parties will think twice before voting against it if it means triggering an election, and it greatly increases the degree to which the parties will get their MPs to toe the party line.
With a non-confidence vote, MPs are far more likely to vote on the actual merits of the bill, and what their constituents have expressed to them.
Parent
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You should. And don't just write, but phone and email and while the House is out, visit the constituency office even without an appointment. Get on Harper's ass about it.
It might not do much, but you'll feel better, and he might actually have second thoughts if he's planning to make it a confidence issue or otherwise gun it through Commons.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Three critical steps:
1. Reply, pointing out that their standard form letter is full of lies and half-truths (maybe point out a few of them.)
2. Send copies of the letter to the NDP and Liberal candidates in your riding (or the head of their parties if you don't know who they are.)
3. BE VERY BLUNT AND LET HARPER KNOW YOU'RE CC'ING THE OTHERS.
The third part is the most important - it makes it much harder for him to ignore you if other people who want his job are aware they have something to attack him with.
It's funny what you get used to. (Score:5, Insightful)
We have a bill, moving forward, over which the citizenry seems to be divided between those opposed and those apathetic. And, nevertheless, the bill has a credible shot at passing, and this is treated as a fairly unremarkable occurrence. The fact that legislation can happen, in absence of popular support, unless some(large) quantity of displeasure materializes, is a seriously broken imitation of representative government.
It shouldn't take mass protest to kill legislation that has near zero popular support, it should simply die as a matter of course. How did we come to accept a situation where that isn't the case?
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
It was already on one page, karma whore.