Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Your Rights Online

"Canadian DMCA" Rising From the Dead 211

Posted by kdawson
from the once-more-to-the-barricades dept.
mandelbr0t writes "The Canadian Conservative government is preparing to reintroduce amended copyright legislation on Thursday (we discussed the rumor some weeks ago). Most sources say that the proposed legislation is very similar to Bill C-61, generally dubbed the 'Canadian DMCA.' It still includes definitions of 'technological protections' and criminalizes 'circumvention' of those protections. Bill C-61 died in the summer of 2008, facing massive opposition from the Canadian public. Once again, it's time for Canadians to get politically active; ORC ran a large campaign with the last attempt, and will likely be updated soon with the new proposed legislation." Read below for more of the submitter's thoughts on the coming battle.

As with Bill C-61, the Conservative government has launched a campaign of misinformation to attempt to force the law down our throat. Industry Minister Tony Clement is trying to convince people that "format shifting" is currently illegal. Of course, it is not actually criminal, and enforcement of private infringement, as always, is prevented by the fact that massive invasion of privacy would have to occur. Second, Mr. Clement is claiming that this law is necessary to bring Canada into line with the WIPO Treaty. The above readings discredit WIPO altogether. Furthermore, the two articles that are being referred to are Articles 11 and 12. Note the use of the phrase "effective technological measure" and the absence of any criminality requirement. This legislation is not necessary to provide amended copyright law that is consistent with the WIPO treaty, and will hopefully die an uneventful death, to be buried for eternity.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

"Canadian DMCA" Rising From the Dead

Comments Filter:
  • by mlawrence (1094477) <martin&martinlawrence,ca> on Monday May 31, 2010 @10:29PM (#32414150) Homepage
    We already pay a special tax on blank DVDs and CDs because of "pirating". If the government passes this bill, do you think they would axe this tax? Would they be required to?
    • by cosm (1072588) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <3msoceht>> on Monday May 31, 2010 @10:33PM (#32414208)

      If the government passes this bill, do you think they would axe this tax? Would they be required to?

      IANAC, but from experience here in the US, once a tax is in effect, it is like a cancer. All it does is grow, and no matter what you do to get rid of it, it usually pops back up in one form or another.

      • One could say that "format shifting" taxation is perfectly legal.
        • Format shifting is illegal with DMCA.
          So, we got a tax which has an illegal source.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by silentcoder (1241496)

            >Format shifting is illegal with DMCA.
            >So, we got a tax which has an illegal source.

            Nothing new about that, profit from illegal activities is still taxable for example. Remember, they couldn't nail Al Capone for his drink smuggling during prohibition - but they nailed him for not declaring the income he made from it on his tax return.

            • by metacell (523607)

              The question is why copying should be illegal if we already pay for it.

              • I agree completely with that. I merely pointed out that taxing illegal activities isn't in fact anything unusual. But the logic that you pay a charge because of copying should entitle you to make those copies is something I have no problem with.

              • The real question is why allow indefinite copyright terms. Nothing has gone to the public domain since the 1920s.

      • by mark-t (151149) <markt@ l y n x.bc.ca> on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @01:20AM (#32415228) Journal
        As it sits right now in Canada, it can be reasonably argued that the levy is essentially a taxation on the consumer for the privilege for making private copies of copyrighted works. Whether or not one exercises this privilege does not diminish the fact that one still has it, so the levy has some justification on that basis. However, since making private copies wouldn't be legal anymore on digital media under C-61 or something similar unless the publisher has granted permission for it, there would be no legal grounds to continue the levy, since publishers will either be giving permission for private copying, making the levy redundant with the purchase price of the copyrighted work, or they will not allowed to privately copy at all, making the levy an unrepresented tax - something which is wholeheartedly illegal.
        • by gstoddart (321705)

          there would be no legal grounds to continue the levy, since publishers will either be giving permission for private copying, making the levy redundant with the purchase price of the copyrighted work, or they will not allowed to privately copy at all, making the levy an unrepresented tax - something which is wholeheartedly illegal.

          Yeah, because neither government nor the media companies will want to have their cake and eat it too.

          I'm less optimistic they'll actually repeal the tax if they pass the bill.

          • by mark-t (151149) <markt@ l y n x.bc.ca> on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @08:40AM (#32417606) Journal

            Actually, it's highly probable. The Conservative party has expressed opposition to this levy for quite some time.

            As I said elsewhere, however, I'd rather have to pay a regulated fee or tax in exchange for the liberty to be able to format-shift *ANY* works I might happen to have rather than only be legally allowed to do it when the publisher has acquiesced to allow it. I might still be able to technically accomplish it anyways, but I'd personally rather rest in the knowledge that I would not also be happening to break the law. Private copying (of audio works in particular) has been an explicit infringement exemption in Canada for a number of years and bill C-61 essentially revokes that long-standing exemption (by making it all but moot in the 21st century by narrowing allowed private copying primarily to non-digitally stored works).

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Syberz (1170343)

        IAAC (I am a Canadian) and I can tell you that you're right. Taxes here never go away. For example, the income tax which is taking half my salary was a temporary measure to pay for the costs of the FIRST World War... temporary, my arse...

      • It's a levy, not a tax. The people that receive the money from the levy would prefer this type of legislation over the levy and the government doesn't get to keep it so I suspect that it may die.
    • if it's still there may make for a good court case.

      Even to point of be not guilty as you did pay for stuff you are downloading.

    • by ls671 (1122017) *

      They might not have the chance to go that far. Poll results published by La Presse today says that people are ready to go for a NDP-Liberal coalition as long as NDP leader, Jack Layton is prime minister. I am not sure if the Conservatives could form a majority government given an election. They have been a minority government for quite a while.

      Canadian political system works pretty much like the one in U.K. and Canadians might have been inspired by the recent outcome in U.K.

      La Presse is a French newspaper p

      • by Curtman (556920) *

        They might not have the chance to go that far. Poll results published by La Presse today says that people are ready to go for a NDP-Liberal coalition as long as NDP leader, Jack Layton is prime minister. I am not sure if the Conservatives could form a majority government given an election. They have been a minority government for quite a while.

        Thankfully history tells us the conservabots usually get elected for two minority governments, then they go back to the opposition benches where they belong.

      • A few different things:

        1) ThreeHundredEight [threehundredeight.com] is an excellent resource for Canadian Poll analysis, much like the United States' FiveThirtyEight [fivethirtyeight.com]. Personally I think Rae is probably the only electable leader of the proposed coalition. I think Layton is too far left for Western Canada.

        2) Search Engine [tvo.org] has an excellent podcast up this morning on how the Conservatives are pushing to get this through again.

        3) I swear the Conservatives are trying everything in their power to piss off the future political power base

    • by mark-t (151149)

      Most likely, yes. The Conservative government have expressed opposition to the levy for a number of years.

      That said, I'd rather pay a fee for the liberty to format shift *ANY* material I've purchased than only be allowed to legally do it when the publisher says I can.

    • > If the government passes this bill, do you think they would axe this tax?

      Here's a hint: Income Tax is a temporary measure to help pay for World War I.

  • by RandomFactor (22447) on Monday May 31, 2010 @10:32PM (#32414186)

    Bad law can fail a thousand times, but it only needs to pass once.

    • This is what I worry about; it feels like only a matter of time. The only seeming way out of this is to have a law enacted that ensures consumers' rights are truly fully protected; but then, that seems like a nearly impossible goal to achieve.

      A general lack of understanding about copyright law among people in general really doesn't help the issue. Here's hoping we can both stave it off a bit longer and find a real solution.

    • by bmo (77928) on Monday May 31, 2010 @11:17PM (#32414516)

      It's called crisis fatigue. This is what they're counting on.

      --
      BMO

      • by rtfa-troll (1340807) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @12:59AM (#32415092)

        The answer is to get a counter proposal in via amendments such as the following:

        • Copyright holders who misrepresent their copyright lose it (e.g. if you claim "no copy may be made without authorisation" your copyright is invalid because you failed to mention fair dealiing/fair use).
        • Copyright and any of their representatives have to be clear to the public that the copyright is a trade off with free speech. Again, misrepresentation as a property right automatically voids copyright.
        • Copyright only applies to formats which will be reliable and easy to copy after the term of copyright is up.
        • Reduce copyright limits to maximum 10 years.
        • Attempting to interfere with private copying becomes a criminal offence
        • Copyright only applies to works of serious artistic, educational, informational or intellectual value. Not e.g. to pop songs. (probably as an affirmative defence of "copying a valueless work")

        This is unlikely to succeed this time round, but if people gradually begin to learn about it and understand the benefits of such changes then it may succeed eventually. Getting that kind of thing into the debate will make the lobbyists try to close it down really quickly.

        • by jimicus (737525) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @03:35AM (#32415828)

          You know something? Those of us who have moderate views on copyright protection have tried suggesting all sorts of moderations like this.

          I know of no country where a single one of them has been implemented. Yet I know of lots of countries which have enacted absurd "just shy of perpetual copyright, any attempt to break it is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and silly fines" laws. Clearly the copyright holders are asking for silly things and getting them.

          We need to ask why that is. Is it because nobody is contacting their representative to say "hang on a minute here..."? Or is it because the arguments we put forward are viewed as being so pathetically weak that they may as well be ignored? Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

          • by somersault (912633) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @04:29AM (#32416108) Homepage Journal

            We need to ask why that is. Is it because nobody is contacting their representative to say "hang on a minute here..."? Or is it because the arguments we put forward are viewed as being so pathetically weak that they may as well be ignored? Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

            Or is it because we the public aren't really able to provide any serious kickbacks compared to big business? Well actually we do pay a lot already in taxes, but we don't really get any say in where our money goes. I never vote in general elections - IMO it's almost entirely pointless - but I would certainly vote on individual issues if given the chance.

            I understand that a lot of people out there are dumb fucks and that if the complete running of the country was left to public opinion then it could screw things up a lot, but I would like to be able to vote in a more finely grained manner on several topics. Writing damn letters to people all the time whining about everything I don't like doesn't sound like a very good use of my time either, I'd be sat there for the rest of my life just writing and complaining. And my letters would probably go unnoticed in the piles of other letters from other people complaining about asinine things. IMO we need national online polling systems. No more stupid, inefficient, buggy, paper ballots. I'm sure it'll happen eventually, maybe not in my lifetime though..

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by kent_eh (543303)

              No more stupid, inefficient, buggy, paper ballots. I'm sure it'll happen eventually, maybe not in my lifetime though..

              As opposed to those efficient, slick, shiny electronic ballots that our neighbours to the south use?
              No thanks, I'll stick to the proven method that takes much more effort to screw with.

              • No, I'm talking about online polling. No doubt the slashdot crowd wouldn't like the idea of everyone having their own unique, trackable account, but it would be a hell of a lot cheaper and simpler than physical voting, whether paper or electronic.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Scrameustache (459504)

              I never vote in general elections

              Then STFU. If you don't bother with politics, politics will bother you.

              If you can't in good conscience vote for the fuckers who are alternating their turns to screw us, do what I do: Vote for someone you'd like to win, even though they have no real chance. If we all bothered to do so, they would have a chance.

              • I don't care who "wins". Chances are they may agree with me on one or two issues, but overall the representation you are likely to get out of the current system is abysmal, especially when only limited to two real choices. In this day and age we should be able to have much more of a say on individual issues though, rather than saying "I like this guy, he can run the country for a while!".

              • by TheBig1 (966884)

                ...do what I do: Vote for someone you'd like to win, even though they have no real chance. If we all bothered to do so, they would have a chance.

                Agreed. I have voted Green Party (almost) every election since I was able to vote (the sole exception was when the local Green Party candidate was a stoner who's only platform was to legalize marijuana). As an interesting side note, even these apparently thrown away votes do something, as federal funding for parties for future elections is based on number of vo

            • by Ltap (1572175)
              You sound like you'd enjoy living in British Columbia, then. They have referendums on controversial issues far more often than other provinces, basically where the public needs to decide.
          • by dkleinsc (563838)

            Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

            You mean like these [opensecrets.org] economic [opensecrets.org] arguments [opensecrets.org]? At least, that's the way things are done in the United States.

            • by jimicus (737525)

              I also mean economic arguments in countries where they haven't legislated corruption to quite such an absurd level as the US ;)

          • by Znork (31774) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @06:15AM (#32416570)

            Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments

            Copyright holders have very few valid economic arguments; the economic effects of copyright are fundamentally equivalent to any other taxation scheme. Claiming that more copyright is better for the economy is equivalent to claiming more tax is better for the economy.

            The more likely flow of argument is that industry goon tells USTR representative that more copyright is good for him, then the USTR threatens various countries, who cave in as handing money to the industry goon is cheaper than fighting trade wars.

            Of course, the main reason they get away with that is because IPR funding isn't accounted for in state budgets as it's an externally gathered tax. Had the actual state budget had a '"insurance" payoffs to the MAFIAA so nothing "happens" to our trade status' line it might have been a bit harder to motivate.

            • by jimicus (737525)

              Copyright holders have very few valid economic arguments; the economic effects of copyright are fundamentally equivalent to any other taxation scheme. Claiming that more copyright is better for the economy is equivalent to claiming more tax is better for the economy.

              The more likely flow of argument is that industry goon tells USTR representative that more copyright is good for him, then the USTR threatens various countries, who cave in as handing money to the industry goon is cheaper than fighting trade wars.

              Of course, the main reason they get away with that is because IPR funding isn't accounted for in state budgets as it's an externally gathered tax. Had the actual state budget had a '"insurance" payoffs to the MAFIAA so nothing "happens" to our trade status' line it might have been a bit harder to motivate.

              This is exactly the kind of response I'm talking about.

              Forget about anything that's specific to your country, because we've seen similar behaviour worldwide. Copyright holders will bamboozle representatives (be it MPs, senators or whatever you call them in your country) with all sorts of figures about how much the film and record industries are worth, how much they're losing out to piracy right now, point out that every £/$/€ they lose to piracy means that the proportion of that which would nor

          • by metacell (523607) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @06:52AM (#32416792)

            Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

            It's ironic you should say that, because economic arguments are the strongest arguments against copyright.

            For example, there is no doubt that copyright terms are far, far too long to be beneficial to society. One or two decades is more than enough to give creators an incentive to create; having longer copyright terms than necessary will only prevent society from enjoying the full benefits of the works already created. (Read Against Intellectual Monopoly [ucla.edu] for more economic arguments.)

            It's mostly a matter of lobbying. For example, here in the EU, record companies approached politicians with scary-sounding numbers of how much the industry loses on pirating, explained how many people would lose their jobs if it continued, and got an extension to the copyright of music performances. So now Elvis Presley's recordings are kept out of the public domain for a few more decades (yes, the copyright to Elvis Presleys recordings are held by a German music company). The politicians themselves were too uninformed to see through the layers of bullshit.

            • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

              by Rary (566291)

              It's ironic you should say that, because economic arguments are the strongest arguments against copyright.

              For example, there is no doubt that copyright terms are far, far too long to be beneficial to society.

              Ah, but therein lies the problem. You're concerned with the economic benefits to society, rather than the economic benefits to the copyright holder. The problem is that modern governments aren't made up of idealistic intellectuals. Modern governments are made up of businessmen, and businessmen aren't interested in the original purpose of copyright law to benefit society, they're interested in the modern bastardized purpose of copyright law to guarantee perpetual profits to copyright holders.

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Scrameustache (459504)

            Clearly the copyright holders are asking for silly things and getting them.

            We need to ask why that is.

            It's because of corruption and bribes.

            Is it because nobody is contacting their representative to say "hang on a minute here..."? Or is it because the arguments we put forward are viewed as being so pathetically weak that they may as well be ignored?

            It's because of a variation on the second one: Our arguments don't come with a fat, plain brown envelope and/or a spoken agreement for a high paying job as soon as you leave office after changing the law to benefit my industry. This is how the world has always been, and we need to be aware of it to fight it.

            • by jimicus (737525)

              You see, I'm not entirely convinced this is the case.

              Lots of countries have quite strict rules regarding political parties accepting donations; I think it's rather more likely that the officially-given arguments (piracy will destroy the industry, causing immense loss of revenue to the nations' economy and huge job loss) are actually believed by politicians.

              In which case, the counter-arguments that I've mostly seen (which by and large amount to "waah I don't like it!" and seldom provide any hard research or

        • The trick is to keep things as simple as possible (otherwise politicians get confused). So how about:
          • Legal owners of copyright material have the right to copy, modify, format shift etc. the copyright material for their own purposes and have the right to transfer this right to another if they give it up themselves i.e. sell the material to someone else.
          • Content which ships with DRM that violates these rights is not protected by copyright i.e. if you can break the DRM then you can copy and distribute it at
    • by elrous0 (869638) *
      And, what's more, a well-bribed legislature has every motivation to find a way to pass it. And there are a million sneaky ways to pass legislation "under the radar" if legislators are so motivated (they'll probably tack into onto a bill called the "Aid For Grandmothers of Soldiers Killed In Combat Act").
  • by arkenian (1560563)
    Congratz to canada for resisting this so far, and the support from us sorry sods and brethren to the south to do it again. Hopefully if you prove it can be resisted the US will learn hope once more...
  • by uniquegeek (981813) on Monday May 31, 2010 @10:40PM (#32414278)

    It's going to take more than one party to pass this. So no matter what party your MP belongs to, let them know you are most definitely not amused. And other parties *have* had a hand in this before.

    I've always worried about the ramifications of discouraging people from tinkering, innovation and creative thinking. What happens to a technical creative process go when people are scared of doing something against the law? What does fear to do a creative mind, and what does it mean to our younger generation, and the future of our country?

    So if you care, please inform others about this, and encourage them to follow through on making themselves heard... no matter who their favorites in parliament are.

    (Love Make magazine's motto: void your warranty).

    • by crucifer (697054) on Monday May 31, 2010 @10:53PM (#32414356)
      I contacted my MP, he's in the "Bloc Quebecois" and he assured me that his party was going to second the conservative's motion to pass the bill. So unfortunately, this horrible disaster is going to pass.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by rtfa-troll (1340807)
        Well how about a) naming him and b) trying to get a protest against him organised some time soon in his constituency? If you leave it as "my MP" then there's nothing anyone can do about it (except call all their own MPs and try to identify who the enemy is).
      • I'm quite surprised....I thought the people of Quebec were more sane than the rest of us on matters that impact culture and personal freedoms? What could the Bloc possibly have to gain?

      • by sarhjinian (94086)

        Let me guess, the bill contains a provision that offers five times the fines if the media in question is in French? Or will the fines collected for infringement going to be split 50% for Quebec and 50% for everyone else?

        Two solitudes in action.

    • by grelmar (1823402) on Monday May 31, 2010 @11:10PM (#32414464)
      The current state of the political scene is working against the Conservatives here, so hopefully this will die another death.

      The NDP will vote against this as a matter of policy. Heavy handed copyright just doesn't fit with their philosphy, and they know they would be in deep trouble with their core supporters if they played nice with the Conservatives on this. There really isn't any middle ground for them on this.

      The Grits, in theory, could go either way. They've tried to push through copyright reform when they were in power as well (an failed). But they're lagging in the pols, so I would suspect they'll take the expedient, populist route (in fine Grit tradition) to try and close the gap a bit. Iggy's an academic, and the academic circles are almost universally opposed to this reform, so it would fit with his background to oppose the legislation. It might just be the podium he's been waiting to pound on the get some good press for a change.

      The Bloq... Aww, heck, who knows. I suspect they'll oppose this just for the populist support in Quebec, but you never know. The Bloq is brutally unpredictable when it comes to national policy.

      Overall, I'd say the chance of this passing is 51/49 against. But it's slim. If the Tories make this a confidence vote, it will really put the other parties against the wall, because a snap election works in the Tories' favour at the moment.
      • I wonder about that last bit. The main reason the last election gained the conservatives seats seemed to be the fact that Canadians were pissed off that their opposition called an expensive and pointless re-election. If the Conservatives force a re-election in the process of trying to pass a bill that Canadians can't stand, the resulting election immediately thereafter might cost them seats.
        • I think the problem there is that Conservative supporters would just blame the Liberals/NDP/Bloc for not going along with the Conservatives and forcing an election on an issue they see as obvious or unimportant.

          Conservative support is terribly low in a straight numbers sense. I think they're mostly stripped down to core supporters at the moment; that just happens to be all they need with the terrible centre-left split.

      • by Tuzanor (125152)
        The NDP wants the government to centralize and control culture by furthering taxes on blank media and ipods - hardly a benign and noble philosophy. The bloc tends to lean left on policy issues. They're probably support the NDP plan so long as Quebec got a "proportional" share of the funding.
  • by somenickname (1270442) on Monday May 31, 2010 @11:50PM (#32414708)

    If it failed the first few times, just keep trying. Surely we can either slip it by the public or keep trying until they lose steam or we've distracted them with something else. Do whatever it takes to keep the media industry funding our political campaigns.

    Stories like this almost make me physically ill.

    • by geschild (43455)

      "Stories like this almost make me physically ill."

      Lucky you. I was glad I made it to the toilet in time. :P

  • by Barrinmw (1791848) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @12:04AM (#32414780)
    In the US, if you have a DVD designed not to play on your computer (you play it in Windows Media Player and it comes up as cannot play due to copyright restriction) and you watch it in VLC, if the Movie Studios found out, they could successfully sue you cause you bypassed DRM.
    • by Thanshin (1188877)

      In the US, if you have a DVD designed not to play on your computer and you watch it in VLC, if the Movie Studios found out, they could successfully sue you cause you bypassed DRM.

      And why on earth would you buy a DVD in the US then?

      It's more expensive than downloading it and equally criminal.

      Unless you happen to have bought a DVD player, which would make little sense, having a computer that plays dvds.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      The scary part is if you only ever used VLC (like a lot of people) and just stuck the disk in a ran it, you would effectively be breaking the law without even KNOWING there was a digital lock!
  • by erroneus (253617) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @12:35AM (#32414944) Homepage

    If the Canadian people were able to get the previous attempt stopped, then they also have the power to get some things back. Perhaps it is time for the Canadian people to get some copyright and related laws reformed. First should be to get rid of this ridiculous blank media tax scam. If there are uses that do not include copying movies and music, then the law is unjust and unfair. Clearly, it is and needs to be reversed retroactively... copyright groups need to give the money back.

    Why stop at getting a new law blocked? Take it all back.

    • by Rary (566291)

      If the Canadian people were able to get the previous attempt stopped...

      We were not able to get the previous attempt stopped. The government called an election, and that killed all bills that were in process.

      The Conservatives are just stupid enough to call yet another election and kill it again, especially since they are slightly ahead of the Liberals in the polls right now, and they're big fans of playing the politics game rather than actually doing their jobs. But the Liberals will do everything they can to avoid an election right now, so if it comes down to a confidence issu

    • by drinkypoo (153816)

      First should be to get rid of this ridiculous blank media tax scam. If there are uses that do not include copying movies and music, then the law is unjust and unfair. Clearly, it is and needs to be reversed retroactively... copyright groups need to give the money back.

      Sure, just as soon as everyone gives the media back.

      Giving the money back makes no sense and I don't know how your country works but mine doesn't let you pass a law and retroactively take back monies paid.

      Further, the question is how the majority of Canadians feel about this. Maybe most of them want the media tax; I think it's a pretty good trade for being allowed to copy all the media you like :p

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @12:45AM (#32415010)

    They spent a whole year obtaining and then incorporating the results from public consultation into yet another version of the legislation, then they're going to try to shove the same DMCA-style stuff down our throats again, with a minority government no less?

    I don't think so.

    What was the point of public consultation? What the [expletive deleted] are they doing? They can have their stupid anti-circumvention law that increases penalties if they would just do one simple thing: have the law clearly state that if action you are doing is already legal (e.g., "fair dealing"), then the anti-circumvention part of the law doesn't apply.

    [Warms up printer]

    • by Errol backfiring (1280012) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @03:20AM (#32415784) Journal

      I don't think so.

      Forgive me my pessimism, but I do. Public consultations are meant to influence public opinion, not to actually ask the people anything. When the European Constitution was rejected, the politician's reaction was that they "apparently had not explained it enough", not off course that the people were in any way right. For a politician, the people are only right when they elect your party or share your exact point of view, and wrong in any other case.

  • by Phrogman (80473) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @01:23AM (#32415254) Homepage

    sucking Hollywood's cock. They keep trying to ram this shit through, I guess the bribes are still being paid in full.

    I sincerely hope my fellow Canadians wake up and elect anyone other than Harper and his cronies. Anyone would be better, even Ignatieff.

    • sucking Hollywood's cock. They keep trying to ram this shit through, I guess the bribes are still being paid in full.

      I sincerely hope my fellow Canadians wake up and elect anyone other than Harper and his cronies. Anyone would be better, even Ignatieff.

      Ignatieff has cock breath too, you know. Remember when the Liberals wanted to decriminalize cannabis possession? They sent the justice minister to Washington to ASK PERMISSION, and he came back from the Tsar's office with a "no".
      Canada is subservient to its neighbour.

    • by DarthVain (724186)

      I am pretty sure the Liberals started the legislation in the first place. Their record on Copyright reform is no better. Only the NDP has a strong stance against this type of bill.

      I think this is more of the professional politician being corrupt, and doing whatever it takes to further his or her political career. If that involves the support of media lobbyists as the expense of the people, then so be it. The NDP are idealistic enough to want to do the right thing. The Conservatives and Liberals just want po

  • by Nuitari The Wiz (1123889) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @01:36AM (#32415334)

    If you want to get politically active, a political party is needed.

    Pirate Party of Canada
    www.pirateparty.ca

  • by Errol backfiring (1280012) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @02:28AM (#32415568) Journal
    Any government that proposes the same bullshit twice is out. That should have prevented the European Constitution to be forced down our throats after we rejected it firmly.
  • Why is it that "conservatist" nowadays seems to mean "evil and stupid"? Or was it always that way?

    • Nah, in Canada, it took on that meaning when the Western Alliance hijacked the Progressive Conservatives, and formed the Conservative Party of Canada. The old PCs wern't all that bad, really.

  • "Not one step back!" Do not retreat one inch, ever. If they threaten you with taxes or regulations find ways to encrypt the material and pump it all over the world. The more they push the more you push. Make them dread a fight with you.

  • What lobbyist's do (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MrKaos (858439) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @05:44AM (#32416438) Journal

    Watching these laws being tried and re-tried all over the world demonstrates the will of the establishment in action. These legislations are continually presented all over the world and sometimes I wonder how long it will be before they eventually pass into law. They just keep trying over and over until they get what they want and all our freedom gets diminished into an illusion. Democracy is offered as the ultimate parody of that freedom.

    I'm trying hard to remember where I saw a law passed that actually increased our freedoms. It takes a lot of time to read and critique legislation when you do a day job. Whats guiling is there are people out there who are *paid* to lobby for a reduction of freedoms.

    It really brings home Jefferson's wisdom when he said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by Dunbal (464142) *

      I'm trying hard to remember where I saw a law passed that actually increased our freedoms.

      Kind of a contradiction in terms, really. Laws NEVER increase freedom. By definition they do just the opposite for "somebody", setting (hopefully) concrete boundaries.

      While not all laws are bad, unfortunately we seem to be legislating and restricting every single aspect of human nature. By default you are required to know the law since ignorance of the law does not excuse you

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by metacell (523607)

        Well, sometimes laws are passed which limit the government's freedom, effectively increasing everyone else's.

        • by Dunbal (464142) *

          Well, sometimes laws are passed which limit the government's freedom, effectively increasing everyone else's.

          IANAL but my understanding is that laws are actually passed to grant the government power. The default state for the government is that it is not allowed to to anything. The default state for the citizen is that he is allowed to do anything. The government requires a law to give it specific powers over the citizen. If there is no law supporting a course of action, the government is forbidden from doi

  • If you don't win the first time, just keep bringing it back and back and back until you finally get the timing right and have enough legislators in your pocket to get it passed.

    It's how we've gotten some of the more industry favorable legislation passed down here.

  • As others have said the establishment lawyers keep bringing back the same old laws hoping to eventually wear out the resistance of the majority who continue to carry on pirating to their hearts content. Civil disobedience is the last refuge of the oppressed majority who eventually will rise throw off the shackles of slavery to the suits.

    Wow I'm sounding like Karl Marx all of a sudden ! Too much coffee maybe, Sorry, I'm Canadian.

  • I'm interested in the possibility of getting myself arrested and posssibly sent to jail for violating the proposed laws in the most asinine way possible and then drumming up some kind of media coverage in order to help the public understand just how backwards this legislation is/would be.

    So: what's the most vanilla-white-bread-everybody-does-it-I-can't-believe-he-got-sent-to-jail-for-that public outrage inducing way in which I could violate these laws badly enough to get sent to the klink?

  • I am Canadian myself, I suspect this will not come to pass. I mainly blame the US Media lobbying groups for pressing the Canadian Government into the current situation. No sane government would want this law as it seems to do a better job of upsetting the public than benefiting them. I suspect this law keeps coming up as a way for the government to show the worldly powers that they are trying to do something while realizing at the same time that it's going to keep getting shot down. In some ways Canada
  • ...or could they just not find its heart?

    I mean, with undead legislation, you really have to not take chances...

"You need tender loving care once a week - so that I can slap you into shape." - Ellyn Mustard

Working...