Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Internet Your Rights Online

CRIA, MPAA Demand Expanded DMCA For Canada 224

Posted by timothy
from the professional-envy dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Canadian Recording Industry Association and the MPAA's Canadian subsidiary are demanding that Canada adopt copyright laws that go beyond even the DMCA. The groups demand anti-circumvention law, three strikes and you're out legislation, and increased secondary liability for websites. The demands come as part of the national copyright consultation in which hundreds of Canadians have spoken out against such reforms."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CRIA, MPAA Demand Expanded DMCA For Canada

Comments Filter:
  • Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @12:20PM (#29024855)

    Who the fuck are they to demand that a country do their bidding? Go to hell already.

  • by gpronger (1142181) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @12:21PM (#29024865) Journal
    So what we have is the average Canadian, thinking their government should do one thing, and a few vested parties (with A LOT of $$$) disagreeing. I know how this plays out on this side of the border, but will Canadian govt actually listen to it's people? Eh? Greg
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @12:24PM (#29024905)

    More trade sanctions? You already steal our lumber at less than market value, we sell you power at less than market value, you fish our waters, you drink our water, you consume our oil. Not really sure what else America can make Canada do that they haven't already done to us. Fuck off MPAA, this is a battle you won't win. Canada is united in protecting our freedoms, we don't roll over like the other sheep you've steam rolled.

  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @12:28PM (#29024977)

    And you wonder why I have no qualms subverting your business model

    pass whatever laws you've been PAID to pass.

    that's quite a different matter from getting buy-in from the citizenry. they won't follow really bad laws.

    in the US, we already ignore copyright (many of us do) as a way of protesting the current status quo.

    civil disobedience works and is justified here. ignore any bad laws passed. they don't apply to you. they were corrupt and so are null and void. use your own good common sense! the understanding of what's right and wrong is inside you; you don't need to look at BOUGHT AND PAID FOR laws for your morality.

    once the media industry decided to play fair, we'll take off the mitts and also play fair. until then, its lawlessness. on both sides.

  • "Democracy" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by javacowboy (222023) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @12:29PM (#29024993)

    A friend of mine said once that the global corporations, by nature of the vast resources they control, actually formulate government policy and the elected politicians are the ones tasked with selling those policies to the public. There are minor exceptions such as privatizing Social Security in Bush II's second term in which public opposition is too strong to put through the policy, but these are few and far between.

    In the case of the DMCA, this couldn't be closer to the truth. The problem is that the politicians have had difficulty selling the idea to Canadians at large, and prioritizing it in a minority government.

    With the comment submission process, the elites can make the already formulated policies more palatable to Canadians. Perhaps there will be a few minor compromises. But in the end, they'll get what they want once they find the right "marketing" formula.

    Personally, I find the idea that my internet access could be cut off after three false accusations of piracy to be frightening. I don't pirate anything, but the methodology for associating individuals with IP addresses is rife with errors and false positives.

  • Re:hundreds?? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by stagg (1606187) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @12:36PM (#29025097)
    People very rarely say "Oh look, I'm ignorant about an important issue! Oh no!" They need to realize it's important first... right? :) In this case, it's a very new technology, and debates like this aren't of much interest outside geek circles. Clearly those of us who are concerned do what we can to raise awareness, but in a lot of ways it's still a very new issue, and it takes a while for things like this to reach the public awareness.
  • by FudRucker (866063) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @12:39PM (#29025141)
    the next time you produce a movie why don't you just keep it locked in your vaults and don't let anyone touch it or see it, then nobody will be able to copy/download/upload or pirate it. if someone can see it you can bet they will find a way to make a copy to either share freely or to sell on the black market. and even those that technically don't know how to do it will just get one of those copies so in the long run you are wasting your time and money...

    those that just want to go to the theater will go anyway even if it is available free because they can go with friends & family or on a romantic date and enjoy the show (popcorn and sodapop too) and you still get your billions in return for your investment, so please quit acting like a paranoid selfish kid afraid that somebody is going to take a piece of your candy...
  • Re:"Democracy" (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Fulcrum of Evil (560260) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @12:47PM (#29025235)
    So automate complaint generation and gather a list of influential people. That or go city by city and get everybody.
  • Re:Seriously.. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @12:53PM (#29025323) Homepage

    Not an employer, more like a subcontractor. They are enlisted by artists to "handle" the royalties on their behalf. If the CRIA disappeared today, artists would still be pretty much in the same place. The big guys would be pissed, but they're free to hire their own 1st-tier droogs. The small guys probably wouldn't notice a thing.

  • And I Demand... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by whisper_jeff (680366) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @12:54PM (#29025351)
    I demand that my members of parliament, regardless of party affiliation, stand up to these greed-interested lobby groups and champion the best interests of the people they serve - the people who elected them to their positions.

    As a voting Canadian, I assure the people in power that I do have influence over their job security should my demands not be met. Given that I am confident that my demands are not dissimilar to the demands of other Canadians, I would strongly suggest that the decision-makers of Canada pay close attention to my demands lest they find themselves out of work and replaced with someone who _is_ willing to represent the best interests of the people of my great nation.

    Further, I, as a proud Canadian, demand that lobby groups that do not serve the best interests of the people of my great nation fuck the hell off.
  • by billcopc (196330) <vrillco@yahoo.com> on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:07PM (#29025535) Homepage

    America hasn't "made us do" any of these things. Our trade ministers and premiers are the ones to blame. We've had a really bad run of crooked bastards over the past decade, and the problem stems from the fact that we have a rapidly expanding Albertan market that's got more in common with southern States than a Canadian provinces, and it just so happens that their own mini Bush is the guy calling the shots here in Ottawa.

    If we had leaders with even average-sized balls, they could put a foot down and shift the trade relationships back in our favor - or simply cut the off and see what (doesn't) happen. War ? I can't even type that word without chuckling... The only reason our industries are being exploited is because our leaders set it up that way, under presumed ulterior motives. There's no need to blame the Americans.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:28PM (#29025879)

    Why is there a 'republican' keyword when almost every single recording industry person is a Democrat?? You guys are intellectually dishonest, and uncle fuckers to boot, eh?

  • by DaveV1.0 (203135) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @01:46PM (#29026219) Journal

    If you want 50, ask for 100 and let yourself be argued down a bit.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @02:40PM (#29027079)

    You forget an important equation:

    Citizen vs large corporation = large corporation wins. It doesn't matter who's on what side of the argument, the large corporation will win. Odds are they will throw the case out of court and accuse you of wasting their time... and the next case to follow will be the large corporation suing an individual, and inevitably winning a few million dollars.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @02:49PM (#29027293)

    Speeding tickets and most other vehicular-related offenses are just a revenue grab for the ticket-writing jurisdiction. They are intended not to really deter behavior, just to allow the jurisdiction to shake people down for money. If you wanted to deter routine 10-over speeding, running red lights, and violating parking regulations (three of the biggest revenue-grabbing charges), you would have penalties similar to that of DWIs and attempted vehicular homicide/reckless endangerment. Those have serious consequences like losing your license, jail time, five-figure fines, and a felony on your criminal record. All of the revenue-grabbing offenses are generally just punished with a fine between a few dozen and a few hundred dollars and nothing on your criminal record. The municipalities actually don't want to deter these offenses as if people didn't commit them, the "free" revenue stream would dry up.

  • by MozeeToby (1163751) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @02:54PM (#29027389)

    Oh, and if you defend their position, you are ultimately working for their cause. Even if you're just stating their position (and thereby promote it).

    No, that is not the way discourse works. Just because you don't agree with them, doesn't mean that no one should hear what they have to say. And don't go trying to twist my words around into something that you and I both no I don't mean. My point is that there is a time and a place for debate, attempting to silence or stifle one side of the debate, during that time, is not acceptable.

    That doesn't mean that creationism should be taught in schools; it means that if someone on the board argues that it should be, then the board should debate the point and make a decision. Similarly, before the law is enacted, the public has the right to hear both sides of the story from people on both sides of the issue. Clarifying one side's argument, even the side you don't agree with, improves the quality of the debate and with it the quality of the decision; whether you agree with that decision or not.

  • by Ohio Calvinist (895750) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @03:01PM (#29027543)
    Why is this moderated "Troll?" The OP is correct. The companies are trying to reclassify an activity that has been legal (either truly a right retained by the people or so seldom enforced it is a right by default) to make it a criminal (or severly punished civil) act.

    Who gives convicted sex offenders (by the letter of the law) the time of day to argue the appropriateness of the law that places them under that classification. Copyright offenders (under the new law) will be written off as well as people simply trying to escape the consequences of their actions; rather than a first hand, important, discourse a supposed "free" person has to attempt to have the law changed because they believe it is unjust.

    If you can put the scarlet letter on your critics, you've just-as-well muzzled them in the eyes of the greater culture (at least in America, and probably Canada).
  • Re:"Democracy" (Score:1, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @03:43PM (#29028345)

    Except the only complaints that will count will be those from the copyright hording organizations. This will be enshrined in the law since they are clearly the only trustworthy parties in any copyright dispute and they have the best interests of artists at heart.

  • by Beardo the Bearded (321478) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @04:59PM (#29029807)

    Yes, bill C-60 was bad. C-61 is worse.

    I'd be willing to go so far as to say C-60 was written by people who had no idea what they were writing. That's really our fault for not letting our MPs know that we're available for technical consultation. When lobbyists show up with dozens of clippings about "copyright violations cost $TRILLIONS OMG!!!" and tell them that "consumers demand protection against stolen goods" they will listen. If we're not telling them, "we like our existing laws, and we want to own our own machines," then they just don't hear the other viewpoints.

    They are, for the most part, lawyers. My MP is a doctor, but he's not versed in the intimate details of copyright enforcement and technical limitations, nor how they would be broadly interpreted. (For example, owning a non-Windows machine would be subject to a $20k fine because it won't install SecuROM, so that's circumvention. My DVR will record anything and play anything, so that's $20k there.)

    When I called my MP about C-60, the office was surprised by the bill and what it entailed. It was shelved soon after due to the overwhelming public outrage.

    They do listen; they just have to have something to listen TO.

  • by ceoyoyo (59147) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @05:29PM (#29030167)

    "Canada has been staggering backwards for quite some time on that issue."

    How do you figure? The courts decided that downloading was cool and since then we've resisted attempt after attempt (this is what, five?) to pass a DMCA. There hasn't been any going backwards. Yet.

  • Pointless "laws" (Score:3, Insightful)

    by spaceyhackerlady (462530) on Tuesday August 11, 2009 @06:14PM (#29030759)

    Any law that makes every citizen of the country a criminal is pointless and unenforceable.

    I'm always amazed at the industry spokespeople, and often wonder what planet they are from, because they certainly aren't from the same planet I'm from.

    It's not just copyright. We have a concerted lobbying campaign going on by the car dealers claiming that privately imported vehicles are the enemy of all that is free and right and holy and will cause the end of civilization as we know it, even though the sales of such vehicles are much smaller than, say, Lexus. They have a particular bee in their collective bonnet about right-hand drive vehicles, since these are the most obvious imports.

    ...laura

"Regardless of the legal speed limit, your Buick must be operated at speeds faster than 85 MPH (140kph)." -- 1987 Buick Grand National owners manual.

Working...