Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Music Media Your Rights Online

Canada Introduces DMCA-Style Copyright Law 331

Posted by timothy from the let's-see-less-flattery-please dept.
P Starrson writes "The Canadian government this afternoon kept one promise many could live without. It introduced new copyright legislation that will bring DMCA-style legislation to Canada (backgrounder and FAQ here but bill still not online). Professor Michael Geist has apparently seen a copy and points out on his blog that while the bill does not go as far as the United States, the proposal is full of new rights for the music industry with precious little for users."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada Introduces DMCA-Style Copyright Law More

Canada Introduces DMCA-Style Copyright Law

Comments Filter:

  • It seems like there's a new story on this a couple of times a week. I remember the very first time I heard anything at all (some Senator was pushing some nefarious bill that alledgedly was going to give some "rights" to the music manufactures to help them "control" music as it became more and more digital...). I laughed out loud to myself (is that possible?). Anyway, fast forward to today, and I'm amazed at the progress the music industry has made.

    I watched in amazement as unexpected shills stepped forward to support the music industry in their quest to strip consumers' rights, most notably (or at least the one I can remember) Motley Crue. Further thought brought the logical conculusion these shills were entrenched in the music machine and stood to defend their obscene incomes... The bands that are popular are mostly (not all) there by serendipity. There are tons of excellent musicians out there waiting for their turn. So, Crue, et. al., dig in!

    And now? Canada? Blame United States!

    Regardless, I wish I wish a cohesive movement could arise and say, "no more", though I don't have a clue how to start that. Any good organizers in slashdot land? I don't know how a movement would manifest, but it seems groups have been able to pressure networks to not show shows, why can't the consuming music public apply similar pressure? I for one would be willing to commit to ZERO purchases of any media (dvd, sacd, cd, etc.) for one calendar year. Others? Other ideas?

    • Re:is the toothpaste out of the tube yet? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by xMilkmanDanx ( 866344 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @06:47PM (#12867532) Homepage
      I would suggest a modification of your idea: a boycott of those artists that have SUPPORTED this kind of legislation. To that end, a website listing musicians that support the DMCA and maybe also those that oppose it.

      Personally, I won't purchase anything from Metallica ever since the whole napster event (well, their stuff since then has sucked but that's besides the point). And no, I won't download it either.

      • Re:is the toothpaste out of the tube yet? (Score:4, Informative)

        by kraada ( 300650 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @07:07PM (#12867681)
        To that end, one should look to Boycott-RIAA.com [boycott-riaa.com]. Also, for general use, googling the artist name and "RIAA" tends to find out the information you're looking for . . .

        I for one do not buy RIAA music. Though I did buy two other CDs this year, and go to a concert.

        I hope more people start doing the same.

        • Boycott? What boycott? (Score:5, Funny)

          by XStylus ( 841577 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @09:57PM (#12868697)
          Boycott the RIAA and they'll just blame the decreased sales on piracy. That's their universal excuse for everything.

          Q: "How come you're not selling as many CDs?"
          A: "Because of piracy."

          Q: "Are you sure it isn't because your music sucks?"
          A: "Nope. Our research and focus groups have carefully developed a special style and formula that will generate hits as easy as using a cookie cutter. Each one is a guaranteed chart buster. The only reason they aren't is because of piracy."

          Q: "What about the people boycotting sales of your CDs? Is that affecting your sales?"
          A: "Boycott? Why would anyone boycott us? No, it's only a justification to pirate more music."

          Q: "How come you haven't been able to establish a strong market in China?"
          A: "Piracy. Duh!"

          Q: "What about Antarctica?"
          A: "Yup, piracy there too. Damn polar bears."

          Q: "I hear that there's a new artist out that's selling really well. Is it because they're finally making fresh music that people enjoy?"
          A: "Nope, it's because we've stepped up our efforts to fight piracy."

          Q: "So I guess your shit don't stink, huh?"
          A: "Pirates keep stealing it, so it doesn't linger long enough for the odor to fester."

          Q: "Is there anything good that has come out of piracy?"
          A: "Heck yeah! We're reaching incredible profit milestones thanks to our lawsuit business model. I strongly recommend it for any business, but don't follow SCO's example though."

          Q: "Is there anything pirates are NOT to blame for?"
          A: "Bush getting elected."

      • >> Personally, I won't purchase anything from Metallica ever since the whole napster event

        That's two of us. I wonder how many more sales these guys lost?

        FWIW I don't download. I buy. I'm sitting beside a shelf filled with bought and paid-for music, but I don't buy any more Metallica. The whining over Napster made me lose all respect for them.
    • The example you give about movements to not show shows is quite far removed from this case.
      Such movements are usually backed by religious groups, church organizations and such, center around "moral" opposition to controversial topics and have a regular Sunday audience with which to reach out and recruit their action committees from. Unless 'we' (the slashdot readership) can somehow get ordained as Mormon ministers and convince the citizens of Utah to threaten boycotts against anyone supporting or using the
    • The last time that was tried it led to the American revolution.

      I doubt anything less then a total revolution by the people will get the job done, and the 'industries' have a LOT of money, and have bought a LOT of laws to fight any 'rebellion'.

    • Re:is the toothpaste out of the tube yet? (Score:4, Informative)

      by bitspotter ( 455598 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @09:14PM (#12868434) Journal
      http://www.downhillbattle.org/ [downhillbattle.org] is an extraordinary organization that does just that.

  • It's the users, stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @06:41PM (#12867485)
    of new rights for the music industry with precious little for users.

    When will "the users" realize that they elect the politicians?

    Money can buy influence, but in the end it is each "user" in that voting booth that should be throwing out those elected officials that don't respect them!

    • Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Stevyn ( 691306 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @06:49PM (#12867549)
      Because young people who are affected by these laws tend not to vote. At least in the US, that is. I heard a lot more rhetoric for Kerry than actual votes for Kerry in the past presidential election.

      I'm really really not trying to to start a flame war, an anti-Bush/Kerry flame war, or anything else about the past presidential election.

      My point is politicians cater to those voting for them. And if the people voting for them don't care about the restrictions and the companies donating to their campaigns are encouraging these laws, then a politicians is going to pass these laws.

      • Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by temojen ( 678985 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @07:18PM (#12867752) Journal
        I'm really really not trying to to start a flame war, an anti-Bush/Kerry flame war, or anything else about the past presidential election.

        That's good, because it would be REALLY off-topic in a thread about Canadian copyright law.

      • I agree with you totally, and I'm going to take your logic a step further.

        In addition to the fact the young people in the US don't vote, the flip side is the music industry putting money behind politicians. In a bipartisan system, it isn't a big issue to put money behind BOTH candidates. Analysis of party lines will notice that there is less of a difference between democrats and republicans than ever and both cater to special interests.

        Young people don't vote in presidential elections, but more important

      • Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:4, Insightful)

        by baryon351 ( 626717 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @07:31PM (#12867830)
        Last election I heard dozens of my friends announce they thought bush got in illegally, as they knew nobody personally who voted bush.

        Now, apart from that just not being a representative sample, I also asked them who they voted for.

        All kinds of excuses came up. they were busy on the day, they don't vote out of protest, it was too far to travel, they just forgot.

        So much for not knowing anyone who voted bush - most of them didn't know anybody who voted kerry either.
    • >When will "the users" realize that they elect the
      >politicians?

      When will they realize that the elected government actually does represent the general consensus of the people?

      To me, that's much scarier than any conspiracy theory.

    • Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)

      by wishus ( 174405 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @06:56PM (#12867605) Journal
      Money can buy influence, but in the end it is each "user" in that voting booth that should be throwing out those elected officials that don't respect them!

      I don't think any of my elected officials even have copyright/IP issues on their platform. Even if I do vote against them because of their stand on that issue, they don't know it was because of that issue. They probably assume it was their stance on Iraq, or some other headline issue.

      There are so few candidates that it's impossible to find one that I agree with on all issues. As for the states that elected the congressmen who introduce DMCA-like bills, I doubt it was because they wanted new copyright law.
      • I don't think any of my elected officials even have copyright/IP issues on their platform. [...] There are so few candidates that it's impossible to find one that I agree with on all issues.

        This is the real problem. Thanks to the polarization caused by our electoral system ("first past the post" elections virtually guarantee a two-party state), your only real choice at the ballot box is to vote for one set of positions, or another set of opposing positions. You can't vote for someone without supporting hi
    • Am I responsible for your actions? Can I vote for you? If you are elected, am I now responsible for your actions? No. If I and others were, impeachment would have never been drafted.
    • No it's not the user's fault. How many people are going to care enough to vote for another political party because they passed a copyright law?

      Not enough.

    • Corporate interests run the world... (Score:3, Informative)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Here in canada, like the states, the major parties are very capitalist (Liberals and Conservatives) in nature and support the corporations fully, so you should not be shocked when the gov. lets corporations get their way. Of course, here in canada, the NDP (new democratic party) is the 3rd party (with 19%) of the popular vote, and since it's left-leaning, would be the only party likely to support any sort of consumer rights. If your in the US, both the Dems and Reps are more towards the right (say, compai
    • In the USA, UK or Canada for that matter, the vast majority of voters do not elect the politicians, their votes don't matter.

      Like the USA and UK, Canada uses a first past the post electoral system. More like the UK than US there are 3 significant parties (4 in Quebec) and the governing Liberal party received only 37% of the votes. In the UK, the governing Labour party received only 36% of the votes.

      With first past the post electoral systems you get what are called safe seats, constituencies which constant

      • Also (Score:3, Informative)

        by temojen ( 678985 )
        In an election that was mainly a fight over The Religious Right (Corporatist) vs Corrupt Corporatists where you are lead to believe that it MUST be one or the other, few people realise that they CAN vote for a Non-corporatist party [www.ndp.ca] ( or another [blocquebecois.org], or another [canadianactionparty.ca])

        • Re:Also (Score:2, Informative)

          by Anonymous Coward
          Unfortunatly, bad options aren't really options. It is nice to have options, but if any of the three mentioned parties were to actually get in power then it would be a disaster.

          - NDP: Here in BC we are still recovering from when they were last in power (provincially). They have good intentions but the economics just don't seem to work, unfortunantly.

          - Block: The separtists... all they care about is Quebec. If they got in power it would probably cause a civil war or breakup of Canada.

          - Canadian Acti
    • Actually, the thought of more Americans voting frightens me. Remember that Slashdot article from last week about most Americans supporting more government effors to make the internet "safe"? If you did a survey to see who thought that "dangerous" speech should be outlawed, you would be surprised at the number of people who would say yes. I'm not talking about the average young internet user, but the average housewife. If more people across the country start voting, Jeb Bush will be the next president and an

      • It may take some obscene repression like you've described to help people wake up and take notice.

        In Australia the federal government has been elected to such a position of power that they won't be able to help themselves and push through whatever the hell legislation they want. Subsequently people will realise (hopefully) that vesting absolute power in our elected monarch is a bad thing and if they can't stomach voting for the incompetant opposition party, they will likely be attracted to one of the small

  • better name? (Score:3, Funny)

    by RickPartin ( 892479 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @06:42PM (#12867489) Homepage
    Does it at least have a better name than Digital Millennium Copyright Act?

  • Mirror of All Links (Score:3, Informative)

    by sammykrupa ( 828537 ) <sam@theplaceforitall.com> on Monday June 20, 2005 @06:42PM (#12867490) Homepage Journal
    Here is the Slashdot story with links changed to mirrors:

    P Starrson [mailto] writes "The Canadian government this afternoon kept one promise many could live without. It introduced new copyright legislation that will bring DMCA-style legislation to Canada (backgrounder [networkmirror.com] and FAQ [networkmirror.com] here but bill still not online). Professor Michael Geist [networkmirror.com] has apparently seen a copy and points out on his blog [networkmirror.com] that while the bill does not go as far as the United States, the proposal is full of new rights for the music industry with precious little for users."

  • Inaccurate Headline (Score:5, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 20, 2005 @06:44PM (#12867500)
    They didn't introduce a new law, they introduced a new bill. It's not a law yet, and hopefully won't be.

    Please don't make such misleading headlines.

    • Re:Inaccurate Headline (Score:2, Informative)

      by iSeal ( 854481 )
      Though not implementing this law would mean violating the WIPOs rulings; which state that circumvention of TPM (...DRMs) are illegal.

      Unfortunately, the heritage minister in charge of this debacle has seen little evidence to support our cause. The one event [uottawa.ca] that was supposed to make her see the light failed miserably due to a lack of foresight from the organisers and poor arguments from the attendees.

      In essence: we're screwed. Though we do have the advantage of our lawmakers not being bribed $179,000 b

      • Re:Inaccurate Headline (Score:3, Informative)

        by bigberk ( 547360 )

        Though not implementing this law would mean violating the WIPOs rulings

        Who cares? WIPO isn't the word of God floating down to earth from heaven above. It's the result of a 1995 American bill (NII) under Clinton, which failed in Congress. The industry picked up the flame outside US borders in the WIPO committee under the United Nations. Basically this is a disgusting effort of the media industry to force their desires, which could not originally pass in the USA as law, upon the rest of the world. [refe [sysdesign.ca]

    • They didn't introduce a new law, they introduced a new bill. It's not a law yet, and hopefully won't be.

      OK, let's all sing along to Schoolhouse Rock - "I'm just a bill, yes, I'm only a bill, and I'm living up on Parliament Hill. And someday, the Dark Lord hopes and prays, that I will be a law, but today, I'm just a bill."

      or words to that effect ...
    • How can Canadians help to prevent the "introduced a new bill" from becoming a "passed a new bill"?

      • Re:So, the obvious next question (Score:5, Informative)

        by Beardo the Bearded ( 321478 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @07:29PM (#12867815)
        Here's what we do:

        First, don't panic.

        Once a bill is introduced, the following must happen. You should know this if you're a Canadian.

        1. It is read for the first time in the House of Commons (which has apparently been done.)

        2. The bill goes to the Senate, which will set up a committee to go over the bill and modify / approve it.

        3. The modified bill will go to the HoC again for a second reading. If passed again, it returns to the Senate for further editing.

        4. After the Senate looks over it again, it goes back to the HoC for a third reading and announcement. Once the law has been announced, then it goes into the Copyright Act.

        Note that many laws have been passed but never announced, making them unenforceable.

        To prevent this bill from being passed, do this:

        1. Call and write and email your MP. It's free to do so in Canada. Go to their office and tell them that you want to talk about the bill. (Know the number before you go down.) Don't expect to meet with them. You just want the staff to know that someone was there about Bill C-X and who doesn't support it. Remember that they have their faxes full with US fundie groups complaining about gay marriage.

        2. Tell them that you vote and your friends vote. This shouldn't be a lie. (I think that if someone says they don't vote, it's okay to hit them since it's self-defence.)

        3. Tell them that if this passes, it's enough to get you to vote for a party that doesn't support it.

        4. Remind them that free distribution of Canadian content keeps Canadian culture alive. (Hint: Tragically Hip >> Nickelback.)

        5. Talk about the levy placed on blank media that compensates the recording industry.

        Two other things of vital note:

        1. In Canada, the loser pays the court costs. It's not like in the US where you can bankrupt someone by suing them. If you get in trouble, lawyer up. If your ISP calls, get them to forward all communication to your lawyer.

        2. The ISP can charge for providing the information to the industry. I use Shaw, and I can't possibly see them passing up free money. I mean, come on, it's Shaw.

        3. Set up a neighbourhood network. Get a good router and let your neighbours in on it. Keep the network open. Keep no records of who has what IP address. Then they have no idea who's doing the infriging since you don't know either!
        • And sign the petition [digital-copyright.ca]. This site originally started as anti-DMCA in Canada and that's still the basic idea. But yes, definitely get in contact with your MP.
        • 5. Talk about the levy placed on blank media that compensates the recording industry.

          IMO, this should be the first point to mention, because this argument alone should be sufficient to either destroy completely any ambition from the CRIA to sue people or, at the very least, make the levy on blank media disappear.

          But seriously, if the blank medias were not levied, do they even realize I would have hundreds (or most likely, thousands) of dollars in my pocket to spend on CDs, DVDs and shows I truly like. Ye
        • 3. Set up a neighbourhood network. Get a good router and let your neighbours in on it. Keep the network open. Keep no records of who has what IP address. Then they have no idea who's doing the infriging since you don't know either!

          You forgot, be in violation of your acceptable use policy. Not only that, but also you are to be held responsible if you are aware of such activity.

    • Re:Inaccurate Headline (Score:5, Informative)

      by Drakonian ( 518722 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @07:22PM (#12867778) Homepage
      Correct. So please - write, call or email your MPs! (Writing probably best.)

      List of Canadian MPs [parl.gc.ca]

  • In other news... (Score:5, Funny)

    by jd ( 1658 ) <imipak@ y a hoo.com> on Monday June 20, 2005 @06:45PM (#12867509) Homepage Journal
    ...The Canadian Government was sued today by the RIAA, for copyright infringement, over its DMCA act. "Mine, mine, mine! Precioussss!" squeeled the head of the RIAA, on the One Law being returned.

  • What's worse (Score:2, Insightful)

    by oskard ( 715652 )
    The people who create something evil, or the people who copy them
    • >The people who create something evil, or the people who copy them

      If what they created is protected under the DMCA, then it's more evil to copy.

  • Acceptance of facts (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ProfaneBaby ( 821276 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @06:45PM (#12867513)
    I went to a talk last year given by legal counsel for the EFF about the DMCA, efforts to remove it, and very limited success, and I realized that even the lawyer made one fundamental mistake: they refused to acknowledge that people really do steal significant quantities of music/movies simply because they don't want to pay.

    Until the anti-DMCA crowd accepts and acknowledges that, even though they produce crappy music, people are actively stealing significant quantities of music/movies, they will NEVER gain traction against the well organized lobbying groups.

    The DMCA contains WAY TOO MANY horrible provisions, but the fact that it's defended so harshly by the RIAA/MPAA is indicative of the fact that they are quite desperate. Yes, the recent music sucks, but no, that's still no excuse to steal it. Until the anti-DMCA side is willing to accept a law that reinforces the standard copyright laws in a REASONABLE manner, there's very little chance that the DMCA is going away.
    • I'm not stealing any music. I have a legal right to download music (this bill would not take that right away) and in any case, I pay a levy on most of my media, a levy which is meant to make up for lost sales due to my downloading.

      And I don't download movies, though I think that is not illegal either.

      However, I agree with your claim that people arguing against laws like the DMCA need to admit that people download music without compensating the recording industry in the U.S. In Canada, on the other hand,

    • Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Baricom ( 763970 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @07:00PM (#12867629)
      Until the anti-DMCA crowd accepts and acknowledges that, even though they produce crappy music, people are actively stealing significant quantities of music/movies, they will NEVER gain traction against the well organized lobbying groups.

      It seems that if the anti-DMCA crowd (disclaimer: I'm one of them) were to admit that, then the recording industry would simply say, "See? Those criminals even admit that they're stealing our work! We can't stop at just the DMCA. We have to add DRM, harsher civil and criminal penalties for stealing, and everything else we can possibly do. If we don't, we'll go bankrupt because the pirates are cutting into our revenue stream."

      Obviously, locking us in isn't working. I propose an alternative business method: quality service. It works something like this:
      1. Stop suing your customers. I postulate that the vast majority of people being sued for trading have purchased at least a few CDs. Suing them is just going to irritate them and cause them not to make any other purchasers. It also irritates people who are totally legit, like me.
      2. Stop forcing DRM on customers. It adds to the cost of the product, is easily bypassed by whomever wants to, and makes paying customers feel like they're criminals that can't be trusted.
      3. Sell cheaper, and make up the difference on volume. More people would buy an album for $7.99 than they would at $21.99.
      Those are the facts. It's a shame the RIAA (and the Canuck equivilent) won't accept them.
      • This is your lesson in capitalism for the day.

        You should buy from people who offer goods or services which seem like a fair exchange to you. If you do not like the terms that big record labels attach to their music, you don't have to accept them. What's that? But you still want their music? Well, they don't have to sell it to you on your terms if they don't want to, the same way you didn't have to buy it on theirs.

        The fact that people still buy it despite the restrictions means that the pleasure of li
      • I happen to agree with you. But let me play devil's advocate. Were I the RIAA, here would be my strategy in response to your suggestions:

        1. "Stop suing your customer." I have millions of customers. When I sue just a few, I can settle out of court for more money than they will ever exchange with me in trade. As long as I don't sue everybody everywhere, I can gain money from claims and show people I mean business. Lawsuits are very common and few people pay attention to defending "pirates" and "thieve
      • I get DishNetwork.

        My service costs about $80 per month. With a lot of channels.

        I can even record shows--as many as I like. I could easily max out tapes and DVD-Rs with content. But since I'm going to have content for months to come, I only bother with one or two shows a month.

        I don't bother with stealing movies that will show up on the broadcast. If I gave a friend a Seinfeld episode-- I don't think it would effect the revenue of the network.

        How much do I spend buying music? About $0. Maybe in a year, I
    • they refused to acknowledge that people really do steal significant quantities of music/movies simply because they don't want to pay.

      But is it stealing if you never would have bought it anyway. The music/movie industry would have you believe that every download is a lost sale at full retail price, yet you are not railing against this untruth from the industry.

      To me, stealing is taking a tangible object. Stealing a CD from a music store has taken something of value that cost money to produce. A downl

      • Re:Acceptance of facts - but is it stealing? (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Mr2001 ( 90979 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @07:17PM (#12867745) Homepage Journal
        To me, stealing is taking a tangible object. Stealing a CD from a music store has taken something of value that cost money to produce. A download by a person who would have never bought the song, or can't buy the song -- and many versions of older songs aren't yet even for sale as singles -- hasn't cost the industry a cent, yet they claim losses of billions.

        Exactly. The reason theft is wrong isn't that you get something for nothing; it's that you deprive the owner of the use of what you stole. If I take your car, you can't drive; if I take your CD, you can't listen to it. But if I make a copy of a song on your CD, we can both listen to it; I gain something, but you lose nothing. It makes no sense to speak of stealing something that isn't scarce.

        Furthermore, even in cases where downloading a song causes someone not to buy it, it still isn't stealing. No one owns their expected revenue, and no one has the right to demand money from everyone who enjoys something they worked on. Negative reviews are responsible for more loss of expected revenue than any illegal copying - should we lock up Roger Ebert for preventing movie studios from getting the profit that's rightfully theirs?
      • "But is it stealing if you never would have bought it anyway. The music/movie industry would have you believe that every download is a lost sale at full retail price, yet you are not railing against this untruth from the industry."

        If you wouldn't have bought it anyway, then why did you download it? The truth is at some price you would have bought it, but the price was higher than that, so you set the price at $0, and took it without the sellers consent. A trade requires an agreement between seller and buye
      • But is it stealing if you never would have bought it anyway. The music/movie industry would have you believe that every download is a lost sale at full retail price, yet you are not railing against this untruth from the industry.

        It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.

        Stop trying to compare the two. It's like comparing stealing a loaf of bread from the grocery store to using someone else's trademark.

    • Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:5, Insightful)

      by suitepotato ( 863945 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @07:12PM (#12867714)
      Until the anti-DMCA side is willing to accept a law that reinforces the standard copyright laws in a REASONABLE manner, there's very little chance that the DMCA is going away.

      Not to Godwin this, or to put too fine a point on it, but this is like the Nazis saying they'll be reasonable if only their targets will wear little stars.

      YOU CANNOT BE REASONABLE WITH UNREASONABLE PEOPLE

      The RIAA and MPAA are exactly that: intractably unreasonable. We have DECADES of evidence right from their leaders' mouths documenting this clearly. These are people who believe the advent of the 8-track and then casette recorders were very very bad and dangerous ideas that played into mankind's original sin and gave him tools that he might be a thief. The VCR was a tool of bad nasty people who would steal money from the mouth of Steven Spielberg.

      You cannot begin to overestimate or overstate their lunatic idiocy. There is NO such thing as fair use for these people, they have NO concept of technology as it applies to demographics of adoption and usage and methods of applying technology to making proft, despite Apple's runaway success at putting iTunes to the public, and they have NO interest in listening to reason.

      Compromise? When they agree publicly that copyright was not ever intended and should not ever be used as a tool of permanent monopoly over ideas and expression of same by any organization, when they publicly apologize for suing CHILDREN for piracy, when they admit publicly that THERE IS such a thing as FAIR USE. I put this at the same chance of happening as flying pig racing becoming the newest prime time sport show.

      Personally, I say anyone who shills for them should have their entire catalog of publicly availible IP pirated and spread around to as many places as possible in a show of defiance. They need to learn that they WILL lose this war with the public and that we WILL defy them until they wave the white flag, smell the coffee, grow up, and get with the present day.

      Notice I didn't say that their IP needed to be exprienced, just copied. I wouldn't listen to Motley Crue or Metallica if you paid me and I've never had the slightest interest in downloading one of their songs. But I would do it just to send a message.

      Until then, they give no quarter, we give them none. They aren't desperate. They're greedy and stupid. If I was a pop musician relying on these people to keep me in the money, I'd get my head checked, fire these fools, and adopt a strategy that was in sync with the year 2005 and not 1955.
    • "....people are actively stealing significant quantities of music/movies..."

      Stealing is bad because it causes incontravertable harm, the reason laws against it have been on the books for as long as books have existed. That's why it's called a crime.

      The RIAA members have yet to prove incontravertable harm in a manner a disinterested third party can accept. Until then calling downloads 'stealing' is propaganda. The societal costs for enacting laws based on propaganda will be immense, far far far outweighin

    • Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:3, Insightful)

      by iCEBaLM ( 34905 )
      Until the anti-DMCA crowd accepts and acknowledges that, even though they produce crappy music, people are actively stealing significant quantities of music/movies, they will NEVER gain traction against the well organized lobbying groups.

      That sir, is because it is not theft, it is copyright infringement.

      Theft is depriving the rightful owner of a tangible object. Making a copy of something does not do this.

      I will readily admit to you, right now, that many people infringe copyright simply because they do
  • ...or a multimillion dollar contributor, then you have no freedom, now bend over, sparky!

    when is the recording industry going to start charging for singing inthe shower?

    • I keep waiting for a record company to record some guy saying "DMCA" once and release it on an album so they can sue news stations when they "sing" the lyrics to their new song without permission on the air.

  • The USA (Score:4, Interesting)

    by argoff ( 142580 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @06:49PM (#12867553)
    The moral is, the USA isn't really more corrupt or backward than many other governments out there. They were just the first to get it because that's where most the money is, and that's where the pressures of the information age hit first.

  • Interesting bit (Score:4, Informative)

    by grub ( 11606 ) <slashdot@grub.net> on Monday June 20, 2005 @06:50PM (#12867557) Homepage Journal

    FTA (emphasis mine) This does not alter the right to make a personal copy (including a P2P download) but does set some tough limits on what users are entitled to do with those copies.

    That will be next on the entertainment cartel's radar.

  • Thanks a lot, neighbours... (Score:5, Funny)

    by breon.halling ( 235909 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @06:50PM (#12867562)

    I place the blame squarely on you, America. This was a great place to live, to go to school, to pirate music and raise kids until you moved in across the border.

    Sincerely,
    Canada.

  • What should be reqired... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Nom du Keyboard ( 633989 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @07:08PM (#12867684)
    What should be required is that all technological protection features must disable themselves completely when the copyright period ends.

    And please try to restrain yourself from the obvious follow-up that they'll never have to do this because eternal copyright is just around the corner.

  • No more levy? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Sebby ( 238625 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @07:08PM (#12867687)
    So, this means no more levy on recordable media, right? .... RIGHT?!?

  • The DMCA isn't a problem. It's a nutcase law, I give you that. But it isn't a problem, since the law counts for everybody.

    Applied with a good sense of creative nonsense it can protect anybody from anything.
    Apply the DMCA to ways to access your personal data and sue anybody who sends you comercial mail into next wednesday.

    The DMCA only becomes so oppresive in the US because they don't have the 'loser pays all' paradigm. Which is the only way any civil legal system makes sense. Not having 'loser pays all' is the next best thing to corporate fascism (sic).

    Here in germany I have a friend that has trouble with big players in his field bringing up heavy legal caliber against him (he's into booksales on the web and it's about the german pricefixing law for books, even Pearson is involved). He goes to state court this month and if the corporate assholes lose he can carry on doing his business. In the US he'd be broke allready.

    Bottom line: Add 'loser pays all legal expenses of trial' to the system and have every hotdog stand apply the DMCA to each and everyt aspect of their small business - and the insanity of this law becomes aparent to anybody with basic brain functions. And it will eventually disapear.
    • > In the US he'd be broke already.

      Common enough misconception - one that undoubtedly scares a lot of people into giving up rights.

      Court fees are not as expensive as you've been led to believe. If I'm ever sued, there's no way I'll give up one single item of process. Have a hearing on EVERYTHING, and don't waive your right to have a jury at EVERY hearing.

      Doesn't cost that much. I've done it. Won, too.

      "Loser pays all legal expenses?" The obvious abuse there is for someone to file suit on some triv
    • In Canada, it is "loser pays". Our justice system is quite different from the US. Note that I got a 'C' in my one and only Law course.

      First, the judge who is going to hear the case will try to arbtirate it. This also gives him or her the benefit of finding out who is being a dick.

      The three things you can sue for are:
      1. Actual Costs. i.e. I broke your new TV. The receipt was for $450. Includes legal fees.

      2. Projected Lost Money. i.e. If I get debilatated, I'd sue for my pay with raises x the number of yea
  • While this is simply the most bullshit thing i've seen in a while, i believe this time, the thing that's been having everyone on nerves about canadian politics lately could very very well work to our advantage.

    By this, i mean the fact that we have a MINORITY government ( to all you Us people, this means the party ion power has less votes than the majority required to actually vote things. which means, they have to ally somehow with other parties to pass laws).

    Tonight, i'm getting all the email addresses o
    • We can't get rid of the Liberals

      They spent $2 billion registering guns, after they said it would cost $2 million and screwed it up so bad the registry is useless.

      Then they literally stole millions in cash in their own little friends and family program.

      Don't worry, Ontario will re-elect the Liberals again. There is some unnatural fear of the Conservatives that will keep them from cleaning up the mess. At least the NDP won't run the country,
      I wouldn't want to think of what would happend to our economy if t
    • This is a democracy, dammit. (a bad one, but still one)
  • is the sincerest form of flattery...

  • This has a very good chance of dying... (Score:4, Interesting)

    by Hamster Lover ( 558288 ) * on Monday June 20, 2005 @08:04PM (#12868031) Journal
    In my opinion, there is very little chance of this passing. Parliament is set to recess for the summer and this bill would have to go through first reading, second reading and committee or report stage and finally third reading all before summer recess or risk dying on the order paper. The Liberals are having trouble enough getting the same-sex marriage legislation to third reading stage, never mind a bill introduced this late.

    I think the bill was introduced as a way of deflecting criticism for delaying implementation of recent WIPO intellectual property agreements and to appease lobby groups clamouring for action on the "theft" of music and movies on the internets after several reverses by the courts.

  • They lie right in the FAQ (Score:5, Interesting)

    by nuggz ( 69912 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @08:08PM (#12868056) Homepage
    Q7 "Legitimate access as authorized by the Copyright Act, will not be altered.
    Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however.

    See the Copyright act section 80
    http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39673.html#rid-3 9796 [justice.gc.ca]

    At the very least they shouldn't lie in the FAQ describing a new law.
    Time to contact your MP, remember it is free to snail mail them.

  • as fast as the marijuana bill did.

    harummmmph
  • First of all it is a bill and not a law, which means it is subject to revision and such. Secondly I wonder which parties will pass this bill? Right now we have a minority government and I have found no information about the parties' stance on this bill.

    There are four parties right in the Commons with two independants as tiebreakers. Since the Liberals introduced the bill they are obviously going to vote for it.

    That means they need the support of one more party (and possibly an independant) if this bill

    • If you check out this article [digital-copyright.ca] by Michael Geist, you can see the various parties' stances on copyright reform.

      Summary:
      Liberal - Middle of the road. Basically For.
      NDP - For
      BQ - For
      Conservatives - Against
      Green - Against

      Very surprised particularly at the NDP and Conservatives stance. I voted Green last time in any case.

      The full text of the Toronto Star article linked from the link above to avoid registration:

      Parties the same? Not on tech issues
      Surprising answers emerge from surveys

      With much at stake, ther

  • Sigh (Score:3, Informative)

    by bigberk ( 547360 ) <bigberk@users.pc9.org> on Monday June 20, 2005 @09:14PM (#12868437)
    I've been working pretty hard against this for years. I have phoned up my government representative and tried to talk to them about the issue but realistically, people in government do not understand the issue and are voting blindly. I have documented the proposed changes to law in this Q and A [sysdesign.ca] (no surprise, the background is in US legislation). There was a lot of interest from concerned Canadians, including a petition [digital-copyright.ca] (with thousands of signatures).

    Personally, I will never again buy music or media that originates from an artist under the membership of one of the industry associations (CRIA, RIAA, MPAA) that has lobbied governments and fooled our politicans. From now on it's rentals and second-used (used) media only for me. Please help keep your money out of the hands of these associations; they are already dying, let's finish them off.

    I will not shed a tear for them. These ridiculous laws are not in the best interest of citizens or consumers, at all. You can't convince me otherwise no matter how you spin it.

  • Attention, Citizens of Canada... (Score:4, Informative)

    by wrecked ( 681366 ) on Monday June 20, 2005 @11:42PM (#12869283)
    Normally, I would post this anonymously to avoid being a "karma whore", but since it's late in the day and the story has been up for a while...

    The following is mentioned every time a Slashdot story is posted about Canadian copyright law, but it deserves to be repeated: fellow Canadians, if you want to do something constructive about this, there is a website set up to lobby against this bill, at http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ [digital-copyright.ca]

    According to that site, there is a Member of Parliament (MP) with an interest in this issue, who presented the first petition against this bill back in April 2005 [digital-copyright.ca] around the time the first Slashdot story broke, and a second petition in May [digital-copyright.ca]: Peter Julian [peterjulian.ca], New Democratic Party (NDP), MP Burnaby-New Westminster.

  • Please WRITE your MP before Summer, and in Fall (Score:3, Informative)

    by saskboy ( 600063 ) on Tuesday June 21, 2005 @12:07AM (#12869397) Homepage Journal
    DMCA for Canada is not acceptable
    Written Friday March 25 2005

    Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.
    Send your letter for free (no postage necessary when parliament is in session; summer is approaching), to your MP at the following address:
    [your MP's name] M.P.
    House of Commons
    Ottawa ON K1A 0A6

    Find their email address, but write by paper mail too. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/hou se/PostalCode.asp?lang=E [parl.gc.ca]

    Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
    To summarize the issues in this letter:
    1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.

    2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.

    Background:
    http://pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/reform/ statement_e.cfm [pch.gc.ca]

    Here is the reasoning:
    The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.

    Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.
    It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.

    Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other supporters of personal liberty and innovation in the arts. I look forward to hearing from you.

    Sincerely,
    my name

Slashdot Top Deals

I tell them to turn to the study of mathematics, for it is only there that they might escape the lusts of the flesh. -- Thomas Mann, "The Magic Mountain"

Close