US Group Wants Canada Blacklisted Over Piracy

An anonymous reader writes "Following up on an earlier story, the IIAA wants to add Canada to a blacklist of the worst intellectual property offenders. A powerful coalition of U.S. software, movie and music producers is urging the Bush administration to put Canada on an infamous blacklist of intellectual property villains, alongside China, Russia and Belize. 'Canada's chronic failure to modernize its copyright regime has made it a global hub for bootleg movies, pirated software and tiny microchips that allow video-game users to bypass copyright protections', the International Intellectual Property Alliance complains in a submission to the U.S. government."

Next step? Invade? Or read an opposing view.

[Anonymous Coward]

Seriously, everyone just needs to sit back and read http://www.michaelgeist.ca/ [michaelgeist.ca] to get some balance to the story

Piracy is a problem with video games?

[tomstdenis]

You mean the industry that rakes in more than the movie and music industries ... COMBINED?

You mean the one that rakes in more and more profits each year?

Yeah, piracy is just SUCH a problem, crippling that industry...

And Canada doesn't need any new policy since it's already a civil offence to violate the copyright of another.

Why is Canada singled out?

[Cocoshimmy]

Canada isn't the only nation with slack copyright laws. What about, say Romania, which publically declared [theinquirer.net] that they built their country on piracy. Or for example Sweden which hasn't been cracking down on piracy either?

But that is besides the point. This is just yet another attempt by a US lobby to try to use the US government to boss Canada around.

Re:Cue the music

[Telvin_3d]

Well then, make sure your MP knows that you do not support the actions of the current heritage minister Bev Oda. As the person who sets policy for copyright in Canada she has been cught accepting large sums of money ('campaign funding') from American entertainment companies. At the same time, she has refused to meet with almost any groups who represent actual Canadaian artists. Michael Geist has some great reporting on the issue. Check out http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1564/ [michaelgeist.ca] and http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1529/ [michaelgeist.ca] to start, but there is much more there.

When George W. Bush says jump....

[Anonymous Coward]

Stephen Harper's only response is "how high?".

Oh Put A Sock In It

[The Real Nem]

The last article was completely overblown, and this is even worse.

Once put on notice, failure to address U.S. concerns could result in trade challenges at the World Trade Organization, plus possible sanctions.

Need I even go into the many ways the US has violated [www.cbc.ca] our free trade agreement. How are different copyright laws even a violation?

...and tiny microchips that allow video-game users to bypass copyright protections...

Maybe because the copyright protections violate our basic copyright freedoms? There's no DMCA here.

The industry paints a grim picture of Canada as a country where copyright pirates operate with impunity because of lax laws, poor enforcement and a laissez-faire attitude.

In case you haven't noticed, we're lax in all areas of law. How has incarceration [wikipedia.org] helped to reduce US crime rates [fbi.gov]? Why should copyright violation be a criminal offense? The last article was even so bold to say:

Frith says government bureaucrats try to placate him by saying that under the Copyright Act exhibitors have the ability to charge someone criminally. "But here's the catch. Under the Copyright Act, you have to prove that an individual camcording in the theatre is doing it for distribution purposes. That's almost impossible."

So camcording is a criminal offense, you just have to, shock, prove your case rather than assume guilt. I guess this article is *technically* right when it says:

Unlike in the United States and most other developed countries, videotaping movies in theatres is not illegal in Canada.

What else did they complain about proving?

We don't want to have to prove the economic loss from distribution. We want it to be a Criminal Code activity to be caught camcording. Period.

Is that 15th century thinking I hear? Are they going to blacklist every liberal country?

"Highly organized international-crime groups have rushed into the gap left by Canada's outmoded copyright law and now use the country as a springboard from which to undermine legitimate markets in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia and elsewhere," the group said.

Please, the UK and Australia wouldn't even have these type of laws if the US and *AA and friends hadn't strong armed them into it. Are these the only shinning examples they can find?

Re:I speak for all Canadians...

[dryeo]

Actually one of the first things Harper did was settle the softwood lumber dispute. Basically he agreed to settle for 80% or so of the money the US illegally took. For one overview see http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/softwood_lumber/ [www.cbc.ca]

Re:Height of ignorance & arogance

[dryeo]

Actually in Canada it is illegal for you to copy a CD for your friend (it is distributing). What is legal is to let your friend make a copy for their self.
Really this is all about forcing us to have a DMCA type law on the books.

Ob. metaphor correction

[alienmole]

That's "free rein", not "free reign". It's a metaphor from horses (reins) not kings (reigns). See here [wsu.edu].

Re:I speak for all Canadians...

[flyonthewall]

Settle?

Bah, he caved in and gave it all away as a transparent gesture of being neighborly. In reality this was an example of "how high?". In the end, you (U.S.) are paying more for your products due to protectionism from your cartels.

Can't wait to see this government defeated this spring.

Re:Cue the music

[xsbellx]

Then maybe you would like to explain the US totally ignoring softwood lumber rulings from WTO. When will you Americans learn you cannot have it both ways.

Re:Cue the music

[Beached]

It is illegal for Canadian political parties and their members to accept donations greater than a $1000CDN. Also, they must be from individuals. Yes, you could try and get a whole family to each donate a grand each but that is still on average $4200(two parents and two point two children). And that has been done. But nothing I would call huge.

Still, she has been very pro Big Media in her speeches.

Re:Two Canadas

[Anonymous Coward]

Loose translation for those who don't understand French: Often, many people forget that there are two Canadas. There's the Canada that you know and the other Canada. They are very different. Please, remember the difference. Thank you.

Canadians are nice

[kurt555gs]

I travel to Canada quite a bit, and one thing I find there is a general respect for the law. But, respect works both ways and fair use is fair use.

Just because the US was pressured into these silly ideas of Intellectual Property Owners can rule your mind, doest make them right.

I think what the Riaa and Mpaa are worried about is that Canadians are still customers to be sold, not consumers to be culled.

There are very few places on earth that are as fair and law abiding as Canada, but when we ask them to enact silly DMCA like laws, they might just not agree they want them.

Remember, there is no such thing as Intellectual Property ownership, just a limited monopoly on the rights of distribution, excepting fair use.

The whole world could learn from Canada on this.

Cheers
 

Re:Cue the music

[Hemogoblin]

Dr. Geist has a blog entry on the IIPA report here [michaelgeist.ca].

Heres a good bit: "The U.S. approach is quite clearly one of "do what I say, not what I do" (fair use is good for the U.S., but no one else), advising country after country that it does not meet international TPM standards (perhaps it is the U.S. that is not meeting emerging international standards), and criticizing national attempts to improve education or culture through exceptions or funding programs. Moreover, it is very clear that the U.S. lobby groups are never satisfied as even those countries that have ratified the WIPO treaties or entered into detailed free trade agreements with the U.S. that include IP provisions still find themselves criticized for not doing enough.

Canadians should not be deceived into thinking that our laws are failing to meet an international standard, no matter what U.S. lobby groups or the Globe and Mail say. Rather, Canadians should know that our approach - and the criticism that it inevitably brings from the U.S. - places us in very good company."

Re:Let's go over this slowly

[Eevee]

All Inuit are Eskimos; but not all Eskimos are Inuit. Some Eskimos are Yupik. As for being an insensitive term, apparently it depends on where you live. [uaf.edu]

Re:Cue the music

[renegadesx]

Its mostly Bush and his crownies, but its also every other Americana who believes its his god given right that they should say how things should be run throughout the world, and here it is the general consensus that a very strong majority of Americans are actually like that. There is a picture painted about Americans as arrogant "we rule the world and can do whatever we like" sort of persona and the world "Yankee" is almost always a racial slur to ANY Americans, sometimes abbreviated to yank (as it rhymes with wank) I am no racist but I am merely describing how Americans are labeled.

Re:Cue the music

[kimba]

If we don't, by and large, like what our PM is doing - and has been doing for over a decade - then why do we still vote for him? The people continue to vote him and his party in so I'd say most Aussies therefore agree with his policies. If not, the Aussie people have only the Aussie people to blame. Just like the American people must take the blame for the actions of their leader.

You half answered your own question. In the US, you can vote for the president -- largely for how they handle matters of foreign policy and trade -- as distinct from how you elect representatives to parliament. In Australia, there is no distinction, and the Prime Minister is appointed by the party that has majority representation. Unless you happen to live in the Prime Minister's electorate, you can not vote for or against him.

In Australia, I'd say the majority supported the majority parties' policies on domestic issues (where they have had a pretty good ten years of substantial economic growth, record low unemployment, etc.). Its policy on intellectual property (and, say, the Iraq war) was rather secondary.

If you could vote for John Howard separately on trade issues and the war, I am sure he would have gotten sent a bigger message by the electorate at the last election.

Re:They should start exporting their smokes north

[willy_me]

Actually, it's like this:

1: Canada
2: Mexico
3: Middle East
4: Argentina

I just read this the other day (cnn.com). Personally I was surprised that Mexico exported so much oil, but I'm not surprised about Canada. Funny thing is much of that oil gets sent to the States for refinement and then is sent back to Canada.

Willy

Re:Cue the music

[gregmac]

In the US, you can vote for the president -- largely for how they handle matters of foreign policy and trade -- as distinct from how you elect representatives to parliament. In Australia, there is no distinction, and the Prime Minister is appointed by the party that has majority representation. Unless you happen to live in the Prime Minister's electorate, you can not vote for or against him.

Canada has the same issue, but even if the would-be Prime Minister is not elected, there is the option that a junior member of that party will step down, and a by-election will be held in that riding to get the Prime Minister a seat in the House.

No, the limit actually come out to $4,400

[Walking The Walk]

Sorry, but your information is incorrect. According to the old rules [parl.gc.ca], the limit was $5,000 for individuals, and $1,000 for unions and corporations.

According to the new rules [elections.ca] that took effect January 1st, the limit is

• $1,100 to parties,
• $1,100 to party members,
• $1,100 to party-affiliated entities,
• and $1,100 (total) to party leadership candidates.

That's from individuals, so a family of four could potentially contribute 4 * (4 * $1,100) = $17,600.

That seems "significant" to me.

Re:My Favorite quote

[zuiraM]

"Crisis" is a relative term.

If you've never had any big hassles in your life, your threshold for considering something a crisis will be lower than for people who have had hassles.

This is a recurring problem with serious illness (physical and/or mental), in that it's easy to feel like you're on a different planet than the people you're talking to who have been luckier (so far). Kind of the same thing as coming back from a war. You can't relate. People are experiencing their definition of a crisis over something like missing out on their vacation due to not getting their bonus that year, and you just disconnect.

When you've had several congestive heart failures in a short period of time (physical illness example), been physically stopped from taking your own life to end your pain (mental illness example) or tried to find a way to carry a wounded friend back to the base and a slim chance of recovery without dropping his/her guts on the way (war example), these comparatively little things don't seem to matter as much, and you have problems dealing with people, e.g. effectively reduced empathy with their situation.

Similarly, when you've been picking up body parts of family members (natural disaster example) or eating another human being (famine example), quite a number of things that other people consider problems, or even crises, seem like a positive situation, although not perfect (nothing here is).

Re:As a Canadian to Bush

[MightyYar]

Clinton. It was passed in 1998 - Bush didn't take office until 2001. 'Nuff said.

Re:Cue the music

[Ctrl-Z]

Everything from Timbits to MapleLeaf is American (US) owned, if only through parent companies.

No [wikipedia.org] and no [wikipedia.org].

Re:Cue the music

[Hamfist]

Even though we were mostly British at the time, I think that any threts from our neighbours are more likely to result in history repeating itself. [wikipedia.org]

Interesting that the War of 1812 was initiated by the US outraged at an affront to their liberties, yet this is about the US impressing it's dominance.. A bit of a reversal in 200 years I think.

Re:Cue the music

[Ash Vince]

Everything from Timbits to MapleLeaf is American (US) owned, if only through parent companies.
No and no.


Just followed both the links to wikipedia you posted and then followed wikipedia's links at the bottom of each page. this is what I discovered:

Tim Hortons

This is traded on the NYSE and Toronto Stock Exchange (http://www.timhortons.com/en/pdfs/en_media_kit.pd f) so is probably owned mostly by US investment houses as the original poster said. Regardless of who owns the shares though, trading on a foriegn stock exchange (even in conjunction with TSX) doesn't strike me as canadian ownership.

MapleLeaf

This is only traded on the Toronto Stock Exchange and its mostly canadian owned so in this case you are correct.
(http://ccbn.mobular.net/ccbn/7/1561/1724/)