Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Your Rights Online

Canadian DMCA Coming This Spring 153

Posted by ScuttleMonkey
from the riding-the-band-wagon dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian government is reportedly ready to introduce copyright reform legislation this spring, provided that no election is called. The new bill would move Canada far closer to the U.S. on copyright, with DMCA-style anti-circumvention legislation that prohibits circumvention of DRM systems and bans software and mod chips that can be used to circumvent such systems."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canadian DMCA Coming This Spring

Comments Filter:
  • by feepcreature (623518) on Monday April 16, 2007 @03:38PM (#18754537) Homepage
    ...call an election!
    • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, 2007 @04:29PM (#18755263)
      The trouble with calling an election is that as much as people want the conservatives out of power, we're also comfortable with the minority government, because they simply can't actually follow up on their platform, or do anything rash, as the opposition will, in that event, call a vote of non-confidence, thus toppling the minority government, and send us back to the polls.

      However, the opposition isn't ready to go back to the polls, as the liberal party is still in shambles, and Stephane Dion has yet to prove his competence as a leader. The Bloc Quebecois can't hope to pull of a repeat of 1994 and ed up as the official opposition, unless there is a clear majority; given the state of the liberals, it would have to be a conservative majority, and nobody (save the prairies, Canada's equivalent of the bible belt) wants to see that. The NDP is still between 4 and 8 years away from realistically making the elections look like a three-horse race, and the Greens/Communists/Marxist-Leninists, well, they barely even count as political parties.

      Politics is a delicate situation in Canada. Its not as easy as voting no-confidence, not as long as there is still the threat of the conservatives goes in as a majority. We're still rather sore from Mulroney's stint as prime minister. And frankly, many are waiting for Harper to fuck up like Mulroney did, before toppling the government. (For those not familiar with Canadian politics, the conservative party imploded after Mulroney's time in power, falling from a clear majority to, if I recall correctly, not even managing a double-digit seat-count in the next elections).

      Frankly the DMCA doesn't scare me even remotely as much as the thought of a conservative majority does, considering the later not only sold out our lumber industry, send troops to Afghanistan against the people's wishes, seeks to abolish our beloved gun registry, and seeks to semi-privatize our beloved public healthcare, but to add insult to injury has so much as stated that they'd even so much as consider repealing the charter of rights, to force through a ban on same-sex marriage, if they had to... Given the choice between dealing with the DMCA, or giving up my civil rights, I'll take the DMCA, thanks. And I kindly ask that anyone who places greater importance on copyright than on civil rights, to kindly get the fuck out of my country. Thanks.

      Screw calling an election, fear of the DMCA doesn't justify the risk of 4 years of aconservative majority. Petition the Governor General to veto the bill if it goes through senate, instead. Its a little known fact of Canadian politics: Provincial PM -> Lieutenant Governor General -> Prime Minister -> Senate -> Prime Minister -> Governor General -> Prime Minister -> Queen Elizabeth II.

      (Yeah, its a tad complicated: our senate is an appointed one, although it can reject bills the government can pass, the prime minister can simply flood the senate with new senators to force a majority vote (see Mulroney's stunt with passing the GST), but the governor General, being the representative of the Queen, can overrule the senate, but the Prime mister can challenge the GG's ruling, calling for his or her resignation, and finally in such as situation, the true head of state, the queen, can either side with the Prime Minister, or the governor general. Although there is precedent for the lieutenant governor general to overrule the provincial PM, and there is precedent for the Governor General to overrule the ruling Prime Minister, as far as I can tell, there has never bee a case in which the queen has been invoked directly, though our constitution does grant the ruling monarch, as constitutional head of state, the final word in all political affairs).
      • by shaitand (626655)
        'seeks to abolish our beloved gun registry'

        Opposing registries (of guns or anything else) doesn't really mesh with claiming civil rights advocacy.

      • by Trails (629752)

        the conservative party imploded after Mulroney's time in power, falling from a clear majority to, if I recall correctly, not even managing a double-digit seat-count in the next elections
        They ended up with 2 seats. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressive_conservat ive#History [wikipedia.org]
      • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

        by grimr (88927)
        "beloved gun registry" Huh? All of the people I know think it's a waste of money. 2 billion dollars to make people 'feel' safe? First of all, the criminals won't register their guns. And second, I just read in todays paper which quoted a cop saying the police were told not to use it as it contained stale data. Beloved my ass...
        • Organized criminals and black market aside, most guns used in murders followed by suicide are registered.

          I am also among those who believe the registry is completely pointless... or at the very least not worth more than 1% of what it has cost so far. This is far worse than the sponsorship thing.
          • Somehow I doubt knowing that a gun was registered will help after the fact in a murder-suicide. What are the cops going to do, exhume the killer and re-bury them in jail?
            • I know, that's why I said it was pointless.

              For hit&run, using your own registered weapon would be stupid... from this angle, the registry exposes honest gun owners to framing. Even worse, some people may end up "owning" a gun they've never seen or heard of until the police interrogates/jails them as the primary suspect after the weapon was used in a shoot-out/murder.

              So, not only is the registry unfit for its primary purpose, it can also be used to frame people by misleading police investigators.
      • by kilrogg (119108) on Monday April 16, 2007 @09:51PM (#18761415) Homepage
        The Liberals have had similar legislation in the works for at least the past 6 years, there's no doubt that a DCMA-style law will eventually pass in parliament, its only a matter of time. As for the rest of your random partisan attacks:

        considering the later not only sold out our lumber industry,

        The provinces and lumber industry agreed to the deal, they agreed it was a good compromise. (and besides, with the export tax, this means more money going to the governments and therefore less tax that us taxpayers need to pay. As well, there is possibly now less pressure to clear-cut our beautiful forests to satisfy American demand).

        send troops to Afghanistan against the people's wishes

        The Liberal's sent them there, and the majority of parliament agreed to extend it by 2 years.

        seeks to abolish our beloved gun registry

        The registry is a waste of money. I've yet to hear of a case where the registry saved a life, yet many cases continue to occur with registered guns despite the registry (Dawson shooting being a high profile example). Let's spend that 2 billion on policing and prevention instead.

        and seeks to semi-privatize our beloved public healthcare

        Now your just making stuff up. The conservatives have continuously expressed support for healthcare, including the recent wait-time guarantee initiative (although not perfect, its at least a step in the right direction).

        but to add insult to injury has so much as stated that they'd even so much as consider repealing the charter of rights

        What are you talking about here? They've talked about strengthening it by adding property rights to the charter.

        to force through a ban on same-sex marriage

        They had an open vote on it, it didn't pass, case closed. (and incidentally, it was supported by a small number of liberals and opposed by some conservatives).

      • by Curtman (556920)

        The NDP is still between 4 and 8 years away from realistically making the elections look like a three-horse race

        Realistically? The best the NDP has ever done is 43 seats in 1988. What makes you think the NDP will get anywhere in 4 to 8 years?

        I say we should cancel the NDP. It isn't a party if nobody shows up.
      • by Curtman (556920)

        send troops to Afghanistan against the people's wishes

        That was the Liberals, and they were obliged to by NATO.
      • Three horse race? You are mistaking the one-party system of the US with our multi-party democracy. The greens are polling at what, 33% of the population these days? They will take seats, and they will represent a subset of the people of Canada in parliament. They, along with the NDP(and *gasp* the conservatives) will together, come to a consensus about what direction our country will go. It is not merely who is in power what is important, as we saw in the ndp-liberal budget, even smaller parties can ha
    • by mrmcwn (566272)
      I think ACTRA/UDA/SOCAN and the various other artists' unions are slightly more entrenched (and vocal) in the political machine than the people who actually consume the media. Not to mention the big software manufacturers with big luxury boxes at the Corel Centre (or whatever it is called these days) in Ottawa. The chances of this passing increase with every round the Sens progress in the playoffs...

      Someone should point out how much the feds collect in GST on the media levy (a tax on a tax...beautiful) to h
      • and if i remember correctly there has been a canadian artist union against the dmca for years. weather its these union's official policies, or the high profile artists from this union, i cant remember, but they made a huge stink about C60 in the main strem press the last time it came up.
      • by SoSueMe (263478)

        Corel Centre (or whatever it is called these days)

        It's now called "Scotia Bank Place" [scotiabankplace.com].
        Mmmmm, nice warm fuzzy feeling there.

    • Ever hear of the TRIPS agreement? Every country that signed it is obliged to implement DMCA-type legislation. That was in 1996 and it's a done deal folks. If you want to fix it, you'll have to get your country to pull out of the agreement.
  • I am skeptical (Score:5, Interesting)

    by 5, Troll (919133) on Monday April 16, 2007 @03:38PM (#18754545) Journal
    Two things: In the current political climate, such a bill would not get much traction as there is a minority government who desperately wants to become a majority next election. Bills such as the one described don't get you votes as it doesn't benefit the majority of voters.

    Second, it's my understanding that the current state of copyright in Canada is that it is not the form in which a copyrighted work is held (ie DVD, CD, mp3, avi), but the manner in which it is used. So, you can have a zillion mp3s for personal use, but you cannot use them in a publication, or broadcast them without the express consent of the copyright holders.

    In my mind, it would be very hard to change current law in such a way so as to preserve the status quo, such as libraries.

    Plus, they already tax removable media to compensate the rights-holders of all major video and audio media(while screwing independants... which is another topic for another day), so you'd think that they would either have to remove that levy, or all people to continue doing what they are doing.
    • pay double (Score:3, Interesting)

      by chris_7d0h (216090)
      Well, judging by other countries it's likely they will retain the levy and still make it illegal to copy stuff.
      Taking Sweden as an example, there they tax all storage media (not just "removable" media) with this levy. Actually it's not really a tax (taxing illegal activities is illegal itself), but a state protected fee which a private organization is allowed to collect and without insight into how, distribute parts of the sum to a secret list of copyright holders.

      So I guess you have to look forward to bein
      • Re:pay double (Score:5, Interesting)

        by Frymaster (171343) on Monday April 16, 2007 @04:14PM (#18754995) Homepage Journal
        Taking Sweden as an example, there they tax all storage media (not just "removable" media) with this levy. Actually it's not really a tax (taxing illegal activities is illegal itself), but a state protected fee which a private organization is allowed to collect and without insight into how, distribute parts of the sum to a secret list of copyright holders.

        canada has a similar law, although it only applies to removable media such as blank cds. now, normally i like the levy, since it helps keep the copyright rottweilers at bay, but consider this...

        i'm in this rock band [telus.net]. we are, as one local journalist stated, "startlingly unsuccessful". so, we record and release a compact disc. it's a run of 500 and we sell, maybe, ten (thanks mom!) and lose a tonne of money. this is not an unusual scenario.

        but the kicker is this: we pay the levy on the blank cd's we use for our release. this means that some major-label canadian artist (ms. levign perhaps) is actually making money off of my band's record while my band is losing money.

        amazing stuff.
        • Re:pay double (Score:5, Insightful)

          by gobbo (567674) <wrewrite@gmail. c o m> on Monday April 16, 2007 @05:59PM (#18757689) Journal

          i'm in this rock band [telus.net]. we are, as one local journalist stated, "startlingly unsuccessful". so, we record and release a compact disc. it's a run of 500 and we sell, maybe, ten (thanks mom!) and lose a tonne of money. this is not an unusual scenario.
          but the kicker is this: we pay the levy on the blank cd's we use for our release. this means that some major-label canadian artist (ms. levign perhaps) is actually making money off of my band's record while my band is losing money.

          Well, all you have to do is join the American Federation of Musicians [afm.org], then apply to the Canadian Private Copying Collective [cpcc.ca] for a zero-rating on the levy.

          That should save you $105 on your purchase of 500 blanks (yes, $0.21 on ea.!!), and after the $60 application fee for the zero-rating and the $112.00 annual AFM dues plus the $115 initiation fee, you'll have saved -$182 ...oh.

          I was archiving field recordings on blank media, and paying a levy. At some point, I just broke down and started downloading mp3's so that I didn't feel so ripped off.

          • by billcopc (196330)
            Yep the Canadian music industry is just as ass-backwards as the RIAA, we just don't have as lawsuit-happy a country (yet). What's worse is that most of the "benefits" offered by the AFM are either overbooked or unavailable in most areas. You'll get greater "benefits" by buying a few rounds at the local indie club and chatting it up with the real talent, not the office-dwelling cocksuckers who ruin the industry.
          • AFM is against filesharing, no? That would be like joining the RIAA, or what?
            • by gobbo (567674)

              AFM is against filesharing, no? That would be like joining the RIAA, or what?

              Right, it just gets more and more twisted.

        • by multisync (218450)

          i'm in this rock band [telus.net]. we are, as one local journalist stated, "startlingly unsuccessful". so, we record and release a compact disc. it's a run of 500 and we sell, maybe, ten (thanks mom!) and lose a tonne of money. this is not an unusual scenario.

          but the kicker is this: we pay the levy on the blank cd's we use for our release. this means that some major-label canadian artist (ms. levign perhaps) is actually making money off of my band's record while my band is losing money.

          Thanks for an insigh

      • taxing illegal activities is illegal itself

        Not true; at least in the U.S., there are extant tax structures for things like marijuana, even though possessing it is illegal. They created a whole structure of tax stamps that you have to have on it, and I don't know if it was ever actually used before they just made all possession illegal. But the result is that if you get caught with a large quantity of marijuana, they could probably prosecute you for not having the correct tax stamps on it (since they're impo
    • Bills such as the one described don't get you votes as it doesn't benefit the majority of voters.

      They also don't cost you votes because it's not an issue that's going to fire up the general voting public. Our next election is shaping up to be fought around Canada's mission to Afghanistan, and the environment. Health care will make its usual sound-and-fury, signifying-nothing appearance, Quebec will get talked about, law and order will get talked about, the Liberals will bray on about how "neo-conservati

      • by Curtman (556920)

        Our next election is shaping up to be fought around Canada's mission to Afghanistan, and the environment

        Lets get back to Marijuana decriminalization. That was a fun one.
    • I'm glad to see these points being made early in the discussion. First, the existing legislation was formulated in consideration of fair use. It seems to me that those terms of reference have not materially changed. Unless this legislation is to be revoked, it will remain in force. Second, the existing media levy already compensates copyright holders. No doubt this legislation was not developed in a vacuum, but at the request of interested parties. In other words, the right to fair use of those copies
    • Plus, they already tax removable media to compensate the rights-holders of all major video and audio media(while screwing independants... which is another topic for another day)
      You must be new here!
    • by elrous0 (869638) *

      Bills such as the one described don't get you votes as it doesn't benefit the majority of voters.

      No, it will only get them millions of $$ in campaign donations, movie industry sponsored political fundraisers, and kickbacks. It will also appease the U.S. film industry, which now shoots the majority of its TV shows and movies in Canada using Canadian film crews and adds millions (if not billions) into the local economy.

      But yes, I'm sure the the noble politicians of Canada will ignore all that and just do

  • Slash-olympics. (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ""The Canadian government is reportedly ready to introduce copyright reform legislation this spring, provided that no election is called. The new bill would move Canada far closer to the U.S. on copyright [CC] [MD] [GC], with DMCA-style anti-circumvention legislation that prohibits circumvention of DRM systems and bans software and mod chips that can be used to circumvent such systems.""

    On your marks! Get set! Complain!
    • by compro01 (777531)
      more like

      "On your marks! Get set! Mail letters!"

      my MP and Harper are gonna be getting a sack or two of mail from me and the various people i know.
    • by Dolda2000 (759023)
      Are you implying that this is something which should not naturally be complained about unless one follows Slashdot groupthink?
      • by shaitand (626655)
        'Are you implying that this is something which should not naturally be complained about unless one follows Slashdot groupthink?'

        Hey, I'm first in line to complain but even I have to admit I have never heard of someone outside of Slashdot complaining about the DMCA.
        • then youre living in the wrong areas, or not educating the people around you.
          • by shaitand (626655)
            'then youre living in the wrong areas'

            Maybe. I've lived in Central IL without a peep and now in Miami.

            'or not educating the people around you'

            I wouldn't really count the people I talk to about it. They are hearing it from me. I'm talking about the ignorant masses.

  • Not "coming" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, 2007 @03:41PM (#18754571)

    It's not "coming" as the summary suggests, it's only a bill being put forward.

    • by OECD (639690)
      It's not "coming" as the summary suggests, it's only a bill being put forward.

      It's still one step closer than it was. Yes, there's time to stop it before it arrives, but right now it is approaching.

      • by Abcd1234 (188840)
        Oh please. It's not like this bill will inevitably become law if people don't speak up. Hell, given the current minority government in place, I think it exceedingly *un*likely that we'll see this bill get anywhere in parliament.
        • Why do I hear echoes of Neville Chamberlain in my head?
          Really, I don't think that we're under a Nazi regime, I equate it to more of a fascist concept.
          First, they tried to control the media, then they limited the speaking points of the individual ministers, then they limited the public demonstration of respect for our fallen soldiers (no lowering the flags for casualties in Afghanistan).
          Unca George must be SO proud!
          Except for the little thing about the trains running on time, the checklist is becoming much p
    • by plasmacutter (901737) on Monday April 16, 2007 @04:02PM (#18754857)
      for the past 6 years ive been hearing nothing but rumors about how certain elements (puppets) in the canadian government have been trying to "harmonize" canadian copyright with the US, and every time theyve tried they've met with ever stiffening resistance from very vocal and powerful anti-dmca groups, from a powerful coalition of canadian artists to the canadian papers and the public at large.

      I expect to see such a bill die a public, horrible death. If it does not, however, i'll look forward to the business many developing nations will see as the modchip makers and circumvention tool developers jump ship.
    • It's not "coming" as the summary suggests, it's only a bill being put forward.
      So, basically, it is only being stroked. Full orgasm is not yet forthcoming.
    • by SeaFox (739806)

      It's not "coming" as the summary suggests, it's only a bill being put forward.

      Just like in a horror movie: "Death is coming". Obviously, it's not certain you will be killed when he reaches your house, but Micheal Myers/Jason/whomever is approaching.
  • Finally (Score:5, Funny)

    by Shky (703024) <shkyoleary.gmail@com> on Monday April 16, 2007 @03:42PM (#18754585) Homepage Journal
    No wonder the rest of the world thinks we're a bunch of backwards hicks up here in our igloos. We don't even have the DMCA yet. This should do a lot to remedy our image. Finally some forward thinking going on up here!
    • Hey Bill, can I borrow your sled team to get to the barber's within the next fortnight? My beard is getting mighty long.
  • by jasonmicron (807603) on Monday April 16, 2007 @03:43PM (#18754591)
    I bet it will work as amazingly as it has in the US!
  • by zappepcs (820751) on Monday April 16, 2007 @03:46PM (#18754645) Journal
    This is just a kneejerk reaction to the rumor about Internet radio stations moving to Canada since the CRB decided to price them out of business.

    If I were Canadian, I wouldn't worry so much about DMCA as I would the US pushing hard enough that the Canadian government rolls over on measures that protect their own music and film industries. Hollywood has been losing business to Canadian industry for years now.

    The DMCA would just be one measure to strong arm the entire continent into a position of propping up the **AA at any cost to the consumer.
    • Hollywood has been losing business to Canadian industry for years now.

      No, Hollywood (and its stockholders) has been doing quite well (or not quite so badly, depending on your point of view and your tax status), thanks largely to lower filming costs in Canada. It's the people who used to work on films when they were done in the US that have lost out on the deal...

  • Will we head for the Pole? Or do we keep going “up” into Russia? My mind boggles at all the Slashdot clichés that might come of this.

  • Thank you Bev Oda! Like I needed another reason not to vote for the CPC...
  • by Locklin (1074657) on Monday April 16, 2007 @03:57PM (#18754797) Homepage
    I emailed my MP about the previous version of this bill, and this was his response:

    Dear Mr. Locklin,

    Thank you for your letter regarding Copyright Reform.

    I supported C-60 I would do so again if a similar Bill is reintroduced in the House of Commons. Bill C-60 only made it to the First Reading stage and subsequently fell off the Orders for debate.

    With any amendment that is put forth to a Government Bill, whether through the debate stage or committee stage, it must be balanced in such a way that it doesn't make the legislation appear to be too ambiguous. I as a Member of Parliament I would need to see the how Digital Rights Management (DRM) component of any new legislation would affect not only the industry but also the consumer and whether individual privacy rights would be affected?

    There has yet to be any new Copyright legislation to come before the House of Commons in this session. I will note your concerns if it eventually does.

    Sincerely,

    Hon. Andrew Telegdi, P.C., M.P.
    Kitchener-Waterloo
    • Nice one, I live in Kitchener/Waterloo too. Good to see the local MP is receptive. Also have a look at this comment on how to take action [slashdot.org]. Basically, letters are the best medium, and the best people to send them to are the 'critics' who will hopefully set the honourable Bev 'Corporate Sponsorship' Oda on fire.

      • You live in Kitchener? Is Dave Sim a local fixture of wackiness, or is he enough of a hermit that even people who live there haven't heard of him?
        • Just got here from England about 9 months ago. Am also a geek, so don't get out much, ergo I have no clue what you're talking about! :)

          Care to elaborate?
          • It's okay that you're a geek; I'm a geek, which is why I've heard of him. Dave Sim [wikipedia.org] is a comics artist who was the leading light of the self-publishing movement of the 1980s and 90s; he wrote and drew (with some help on the backgrounds) Cerebus the Aardvark for its entire three hundred issue run. He's one of the most brilliant minds to ever work in comics; he's unsurpassed in the inventiveness and quality of his lettering, in his writing of accents (and people with colds), in his panel layout, in his wit and
            • I had a little read of his Wikipedia page and such. See what you mean about the weirdness, brilliance is always so close to insanity! One day I will read some of his material, although am not really a comic fan, probably why I'd never heard of him!
    • by Benlaron (1089157)
      Any chance on posting the email you sent so us lazy^H^H^H^Hbusy folk can forward it off to our MPs?
  • by toriver (11308) on Monday April 16, 2007 @03:59PM (#18754815)
    ... what happened to charging the music industry's Big Four for cartel activities, or the movie industry over the DVD regions dividing the market into convenient zones (also cartel-like), despite WTO goals of free markets?

    Oh, that's right. They paid off the politicans. Is the lobster to your taste, Mr. Hatch?
    • by isaac (2852)

      Oh, that's right. They paid off the politicans. Is the lobster to your taste, Mr. Hatch?

      Orrin Hatch isn't just some bought-off Senator - he's also a successful recording artist!

      http://www.hatchmusic.com/ [hatchmusic.com]

      So you see, Senator Hatch has a rather personal stake in copyright law. I mean, if his works weren't protected by civil and criminal law unto 70 years after his death, he'd have no incentive to create anything.

      -Isaac

      • by Ajehals (947354) <a.halsall@pirateparty.org.uk> on Monday April 16, 2007 @04:21PM (#18755097) Homepage Journal
        Your post had me in fits of laughter until I realised I'd mis read it - I read

        So you see, Senator Hatch has a rather personal stake in copyright law. I mean, if his works weren't protected by civil and criminal law unto 70 years after his death, he'd have no incentive to create anything.

        as:

        So you see, Senator Hatch has a rather personal stake in copyright law. I mean, if his works weren't protected by civil and criminal law unto 70 years after his death, he'd have no incentive in dying.
  • Odds are... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Bullfish (858648) on Monday April 16, 2007 @04:00PM (#18754825)
    An election will be called within the next month or two, after that, it all depends on who gets into office, but I think it foolish to think that another other party in power would not be pressured by the various lobbies to do their bidding. And all political parties love the money that comes with lobbies.
    • An election will be called within the next month or two, after that, it all depends on who gets into office

      A friend of mine who was the current Secretary of the 43rd District Democrats [43rddems.org] in Seattle has gone up there to help with the elections, so she at least thinks it's fairly certain.

      But I'm not sure I agree with your statement on all political parties loving the money that comes with lobbies - IMHO this does not normally include either the NDP or the Green Party in Canada.

      But what do I know, I used to be a
    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by ubercam (1025540)
      Regarding the money from the political lobbies, it would be maximum $5,000 each. The previous Liberal government passed a law preventing limitless campaign donations. Probably one of the smarter pieces of legislation in the past decade...
      • by JFMulder (59706)
        You mean in the last 30 years. René Lévesque passed this law in the 80s if I recall correctly.
  • by 8127972 (73495) on Monday April 16, 2007 @04:05PM (#18754883)
    .... topic and why it's a bad idea here:

    http://www.caut.ca/en/bulletin/issues/2004_nov/com m_copyrightreform.asp [www.caut.ca]

    Highly recommended reading for Canadians who wish to see why the House Of Commons should bury this idea today.

    For those of you who don't know who Michael Geist is, check out http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Geist [wikipedia.org] for more info.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday April 16, 2007 @04:28PM (#18755233)
    And one argument that has earned a lot of traction here goes like this:
      - DRMs (TPMs, in the jargon) may *in theory* be used to protect artists'/publishers' rights, but in practice they are far more often used to grant publishers new rights, far beyond what the law allows. For example: the copyright holder *has no right*, under law, to say when and how you're allowed to access the media that you've lawfully purchased. Yet this is the "right" that TPMs are most commonly used to "enforce".
      - Therefore, TPMs are used by publishers unilaterally to rewrite their own rights. If it's illegal to circumvent anything calling itself a TPM, then all other "rights" granted to consumers are worthless.
      - So the million-dollar question is this: "Who do you think should be responsible for defining publishers' rights in respect of copyright material? Publishers themselves, or democratically answerable politicians?"

    Good luck.
    • by Pofy (471469)
      So, how does the proposed new law in Canada define "DRM" and what types of DRM does it cover? Similary for New Zeeland? Sure, if they just say DRM in general, it basically ends up to cover anything someone decides to call DRM, it adds new rights in effect. However, I would guess there is SOME definition of it. The US DMCA for example seems to list what type of actions the protection should be fore and it is basically the exact same ones as is listed as being exclusive to the copyright holder (with exception
  • The lobbying efforts of these various content industries are going to continue regardless of which party is in power. Take the time to write your MP [parl.gc.ca], and CC each of the major political parties as well:

    http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1045/ [conservative.ca]
    http://www.liberal.ca/contact_e.aspx [liberal.ca]
    http://www.ndp.ca/contact [www.ndp.ca]
    http://www.green.ca/en/contact [green.ca]

    Make it known that Canadians will not support any government pandering to the one-sided arguments of content publishers. DRM is doomed to failure and propping it up with le
    • by Trails (629752)
      As mentioned in an earlier post, should also probably contact Tina Keeper, Official Opposition Critic for Canadian Heritage. Her mailing address is as follows: Room 712 Confederation Building, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A6.
  • Too bad (Score:4, Interesting)

    by ^_^x (178540) on Monday April 16, 2007 @05:09PM (#18756365)
    For as long as I pay a levy on any recordable media, I will continue to download what I like. If they'd like to challenge me in court, I look forward to asking what exactly I paid that tax for whenever I buy a spool of CDs, DVDs, etc. Royalties for nothing? Government trying to profit from illegal activity?

    And I will continue to apply hacks wherever needed to get around designed weaknesses/inabilities/stupidity. For example, I have a hard disk in my PS2 - I need a modchip to load games off this disk. I load all of my store-bought games onto this disk because if I keep using the PS2's DVD drive, it will almost certainly fail within a few years. I used to use a "digital video stabilizer" to strip Macrovision scrambling off of DVDs so I could watch them - the only way between my player and TV was through my VCR (it converted co-ax to composite) and the Macrovision messed with my VCR, so I removed it. I pity the fool who tries to charge me for something like this.
    • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward
      While I agree with your sentiments, as a lawyer I can tell you that you are the one who will have serious problems if they decide to take action against you. Simply defending the case would probably bankrupt you, regardless of whether you were to win or loose. Getting a costs award is never a sure thing, so even if you win you can still be on the hook for all of your legal expenses. This is why it is important to fight against these laws. Anyone who thinks that they can simply ignore laws that they deem "st
      • by pipingguy (566974) *
        You're a competent lawyer and you can't spell the word, "lose"? Mind you, I just inferred that you are competent. And actually a lawyer.
  • Download all the Anne Murray and Rita MacNeil you can! You may not be able to soon!
    • Also classic Fred Penner and Sharon, Lois & Bram tunes!

      Where would we be as a nation without "Skinamarinky-dinky-dink"?(sp?)
  • DAMNIT!!! >. bloody hell, see this is why I voted the green party. Well they better call an election before this goes up...because if they do then the bill will die and not come back. This is something that happens alot in canadian politics, they put a bill forward just before an election that they know wont fly so that the special intrest group got the attention they wanted but dont have to deal with actually doing it. That better be what there doing anyway...because if not (shakes fist)
  • I'll continue to download/rip movie rentals, and download the software to copy movies and music until they pry my computer from my dead hands
  • I wanted to say it in response to this story:
    http://slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/04/08/221222 5 [slashdot.org]
    but I was too late.

    "In Soviet Canuckistan, intellectual property owns you!"

    Sorry.
  • A silver lining is that "fair dealing" (fair use Canada edition) will likely get an overhaul. It is currently very limited compared to what constitutes fair use in the united states.
  • Seriously, this has to be one of the greatest scams in human history next to religion.

    Got a problem? Make up an unenforceable law to combat it! It makes you look like you're actually doing something worthwhile without exerting any real effort. And, if anyone calls you on it, all you have to do is claim they must just be "light on crime" as a convinient dodge.
  • I suppose that next thing we know, Canada will be following in the footsteps of their Australian brethren and extending their copyright regime from Life+50 to Life+70. Someone should probably call up the Project Gutenberg Canada organizers and tell them never mind.

Neckties strangle clear thinking. -- Lin Yutang

Working...