Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Canada Piracy News

The Behind-the-Scenes Campaign To Bring SOPA To Canada 171

Posted by Soulskill
from the sneak-it-in-during-hockey-season dept.
An anonymous reader writes "SOPA may be dead (for now) in the U.S., but lobby groups are likely to intensify their efforts to export SOPA-like rules to other countries. With the Canadian DMCA back on the legislative agenda at the end of the month, Canada will be a prime target for SOPA style rules. In fact, Michael Geist reports that the recording industry wants language to similar to that found in SOPA on blocking access to websites, new termination policies for subscribers, and an expanded SOPA-style liability for sites that could include YouTube and cloud-based services." Another reader points out that similar mischief is afoot in Ireland: "The Irish government's new 'statutory instrument' threatens to do some of the same things as SOPA, mainly introducing the power to force ISPs to block websites suspected of having copyrighted material on them."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The Behind-the-Scenes Campaign To Bring SOPA To Canada

Comments Filter:
  • by RobertLTux (260313) <robert@lauren c e m a rtin.org> on Monday January 23, 2012 @03:57PM (#38796997)

    Any provisions that can be boiled down to

    A Association Is Collaboration

    B Accusation is Conviction

    needs to result in the bill being killed.

    Linking to %BadContent% should not be a crime per say (unless thats a majority of what you do). And Blunt killing of a server (or server farm) should not even be considered.

    Also there should be a short waiting period (to send a takedown REQUEST to the site owner) before a whole server gets nuked.

    The last thing that should be in any law is if it is found that the complainant acted "In Bad Faith" then he should receive 7/8ths of the punishment that was involved (and be open to CIVIL remedies).
     

  • by Anrego (830717) * on Monday January 23, 2012 @04:02PM (#38797043)

    This attitude is just part of the problem.

    Both sides are full of unrealistic extremists and it's getting us nowhere. The digital world is very different in regards the reality of property. For the same reason that traditional property rules don’t apply well (or at all), the kind of logic you are applying doesn’t either.

    We need rational thinking where both sides meet half way, not two sides screaming their extremist views at each other... especially as one side has a lot more influence to wield that the other.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23, 2012 @04:03PM (#38797051)

    No, this is stupid. We want people to publish their developments and techniques: so that more people can use them. Also, copyright (for a limited time is a good thing). 70 years after your death (more likely, indefinitely, due to the inevitable increase in this duration) is too long. Patents are probably good, I don't know about the duration. However, design, business method, and obvious patents are not.

    Would we be better off without them at all (than what we have now)? Possibly. But it would be best to have a fine-tuned system that actually encouraged invention, instead of stifling it.

  • by na1led (1030470) on Monday January 23, 2012 @04:04PM (#38797063)
    Why does Tyranny always come back to societies over and over. Seems throughout history, humans just can't put an end to dictatorship rule! All these new laws are being put in place to control our lives until we all become puppets on a string.
  • by Overzeetop (214511) on Monday January 23, 2012 @04:15PM (#38797191) Journal

    ...just not as it is currently implemented.

    Terms of 7/14/20/28 years may still be appropriate, as the rise of technology has made duplication of intellectual works easier to copy and disseminate. Those who create content are no longer concerned about a dozen possible sources of competition in duplication, but tens of millions. The ease of publishing and typical shelf life should, actually, serve to reduce - not extend - copyright and patent terms, as the ability to bring a product to mass market is on a significantly shorter timescale than 200 years ago.

    Interestingly, there are methods in place which provide for (almost) easy compliance with copyright laws. but they apply to only the narrowest slice of content. I'm talking about mechanical licensing fees - 10c per physically recorded track or permanent digital download. Problem is, it only applies to the composer of music, and only to mechanical rights. Not to arrangement. Not to synchronization (video). Not to masters (people performing the work). Not to written or spoken work. Not to images. Not to video clips. Not to patents.

    The biggest problem is not the existence of patents and copyright, but the byzantine implementation and licensing, and the one-sided legislation which is being written to perpetuate these institutions.

    IP laws are a good thing; the way they are implemented is flawed.

  • by NIK282000 (737852) on Monday January 23, 2012 @04:17PM (#38797213) Homepage Journal
    It doesn't matter how much more expensive it is to buy politicians here, the Canadian government will without fail just follow along with what ever the US tell it to do. Why else would it sell oil lumber and power to the US at a loss?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Monday January 23, 2012 @04:50PM (#38797597)

    Normally I'd agree with you, but current copyright law is already extreme. As in, extremely one-sided. You can't take a reasonable position vs. an extremist, because you'll be expected to compromise, and that compromise will still be extreme, just not as extreme as it could have been.

    For instance:

    MAFIAA: All websites that host, point to, or in any way facilitate or encourage copyright infringement should be shut down immediately with no due process and no method of appeal, and the website operators should be jailed for fifty years. All websites should be required to police their own content, and if we find a single piece of copyrighted material on the site, the whole site should be shut down. Anyone found guilty of downloading a song or movie without our permission should be fined millions of dollars.

    Reasonable Guy: Websites should not be shut down without a conviction in criminal court or a finding of liability in civil court. Websites should not be required to remove anything from their site unless the copyright holder swears under penalty of perjury that the material infringes their copyright. Copyright infringement should be a civil issue, not a criminal issue. Copyright infringement is the digital equivalent of jaywalking and should result in fines maxing out in the hundreds of dollars in extreme cases.

    MAFIAA: Okay, because we're so generous, we'll compromise. We'll provide a list of titles that websites can match against to see if they're infringing. If any file on the website matches one of these titles in whole or in part, the site should be shut down. Like that file "The Gettysburg Address.txt" is clearly a copy of the movie "The Fellowship of the Ring" because they both begin with the word "The". As for jailing the website operators, we'll go with twenty years instead. And we'll concede that a fine of millions of dollars for illegally downloading a song is too much, so we'll settle for hundreds of thousands of dollars. See how magnanimous we are?

    Government: Sounds like an acceptable compromise to me. I would personally like to thank the MAFIAA for being so reasonable and willing to make such huge concessions in order to settle this matter amicably. Isn't it great when we all get along?

  • by roman_mir (125474) on Monday January 23, 2012 @04:54PM (#38797665) Homepage Journal

    Let me put in simple terms: the majority of the planet does not care about copyright and patent law, and with less and less economic power being held by those who care and with more and more economic power being held by those who do not, this problem will eventually cease to exist, but so will the economies that use government power to protect business models and sell people's freedoms for re-election.

  • by JesseMcDonald (536341) on Monday January 23, 2012 @04:55PM (#38797669) Homepage

    We need rational thinking where both sides meet half way...

    This topic, like how much murder is tolerable, or what level of slavery is most beneficial, is not one which is amenable to half-hearted compromises. The only difference is that this issue remains undecided.

    Depending on the principles you start from, you end up in one of three basic positions: (1) copyright, etc., are fundamental rights, which should persist for at least the lifetime of the producer (and possibly inherited) and should never be infringed upon; (2) copyright, etc., are legitimate constructs, not rights, instituted to promote the social good, and should be set at whatever point optimizes this good, infringement being a crime against society for subverting this policy; or (3) copyright, etc., contradict fundamental rights, such as the right to own and use private property in a non-aggressive manner, and thus have no legitimacy.

    Compromise is only really possible within the second category, over issues such as the optimal length, or socially-beneficial exceptions. This is possible because the second position ignores the question of natural rights entirely; it assumes that producers do not have a natural right to control distribution of their work, and that the government has legitimate authority to curtail use of private property. All that remains is to work out the details.

    You can't "meet halfway" between category (1) and category (3), or even between either group and category (2), however, without one side or the other forfeiting their integrity. In the case of group (1), while they might be individually willing to shorten their claims or forgo them entirely, they can't make that decision for all producers everywhere. However much they may want to compromise on behalf of "their side", they don't have the authority to do so. Group (3) has the same problem; any compromise would affect not just themselves, but everyone else whose property rights are to be violated to incentivise production of creative works.

    A willingness to forgo one's own perogatives and preferences to arrive at a mutually-acceptable compromise is an admirable trait. However, one must never compromise one's core principles—and that is exactly what would be required to "meet halfway" in this situation.

  • by roman_mir (125474) on Monday January 23, 2012 @04:59PM (#38797749) Homepage Journal

    You are a short-sighted person.

    It's fine if somebody gets 'bombed' and loses at business - it's a natural consequence of market doing its work, allocating resources in the most efficient manner.

    Copyrights and patents ARE a subsidy, and if you don't understand that concept, I suggest you try and visit this site [megaupload.com], and you will see a nice big government note there, subsidising a failing business model.

    It's called FBI, federal courts, police, prisons and eventually military.

    Either YOU are a liar or a very unintelligent person.

  • by morgauxo (974071) on Monday January 23, 2012 @05:05PM (#38797807)
    Have you seen what the US does to countries that don't?
  • by NIK282000 (737852) on Monday January 23, 2012 @05:11PM (#38797855) Homepage Journal
    Move in for 10 years, mess up the place and then give up?
  • Juicy target (Score:4, Insightful)

    by wiedzmin (1269816) on Monday January 23, 2012 @07:29PM (#38799405)
    Oh that's a very good investment by the copyright trolls, none of the content available in the US is available in Canada (Hulu, some YouTube videos, Netflix titles, Kindle titles and collections, you name it). You couldn't get it by paying for it, even if you really wanted to, so it's a prime market for piracy. Also, Canadians pay a levy on recordable media, so it's legal for them to create "backups" of things for "personal use"... good place to try to make some money in lawsuits and seizures.

Pound for pound, the amoeba is the most vicious animal on earth.

Working...