Canadian SOPA Could Target YouTube 231
bs0d3 writes "The music industry is seeking over a dozen changes to Canadian anti-piracy bill C-11, including website blocking, Internet termination for alleged repeat infringers, and an expansion of the "enabler" provision that is supposedly designed to target pirate sites. Meanwhile, the Entertainment Software Association of Canada also wants an expansion of the enabler provision along with further tightening of the already-restrictive digital lock rules. It's concerning that some of these expansions will create a risky situation for legitimate websites, as SOPA did in the U.S. Michael Geist outlines the legal history and complications here."
Re:Oh, Canada (Score:5, Informative)
At least Quebec didn't vote the Conservatives into power...
Actual article website (Score:5, Informative)
Can we link to Michael Geist's actual article rather than that horrid looking ActivePolitic website?
Original [michaelgeist.ca]
Re:Down with the ESA kill E3 (Score:2, Informative)
Eh? (Score:5, Informative)
Wait, I though Canada had a levy on all CDs [wikipedia.org] and magnetic media (Flash as well?) so that the recording industry could get compensation for piracy?
They get compensation, and the power to block or take down sites? That seems like a bit too much of a handout to a particular industry for my tastes.
Re:we need a tech star chamber (Score:0, Informative)
Comcast
...SOPA-supporting Comcast?
Re:C-11 is NOTHING like SOPA, and milder then DMCA (Score:5, Informative)
Breaking any type of "digital" lock on something, whether copyrighted or not, without the owners permission under Canadian law is illegal.
Please cite the law as I will cite the a judgment CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13 :
...
Under s. 29 of the Copyright Act, fair dealing for the purpose of research or private study does not infringe copyright. “Research” must be given a large and liberal interpretation in order to ensure that users’ rights are not unduly constrained, and is not limited to non-commercial or private contexts. Lawyers carrying on the business of law for profit are conducting research within the meaning of s. 29. The following factors help determine whether a dealing is fair: the purpose of the dealing, the character of the dealing, the amount of the dealing, the nature of the work, available alternatives to the dealing, and the effect of the dealing on the work. Here, the Law Society’s dealings with the publishers’ works through its custom photocopy service were research-based and fair. The access policy places appropriate limits on the type of copying that the Law Society will do. If a request does not appear to be for the purpose of research, criticism, review or private study, the copy will not be made. If a question arises as to whether the stated purpose is legitimate, the reference librarian will review the matter. The access policy limits the amount of work that will be copied, and the reference librarian reviews requests that exceed what might typically be considered reasonable and has the right to refuse to fulfill a request.
The Law Society did not authorize copyright infringement by providing selfservice photocopiers for use by its patrons in the Great Library. While authorization can be inferred from acts that are less than direct and positive, a person does not authorize infringement by authorizing the mere use of equipment that could be used to infringe copyright. Courts should presume that a person who authorizes an activity does so only so far as it is in accordance with the law. This presumption may be rebutted if it is shown that a certain relationship or degree of control existed between the alleged authorizer and the persons who committed the copyright infringement. Here, there was no evidence that the copiers had been used in a manner that was not consistent with copyright law. Moreover, the Law Society’s posting of a notice warning that it will not be responsible for any copies made in infringement of copyright does not constitute an express acknowledgement that the copiers will be used in an illegal manner. Finally, even if there were evidence of the copiers having been used to infringe copyright, the Law Society lacks sufficient control over the Great Library’s patrons to permit the conclusion that it sanctioned, approved or countenanced the infringement. ...
also there is another case in the lower court that used that judgment to allow personal backup so please cite the law you refer to