Slashdot Log In
Canada's New DMCA Considered Worst Copyright Law
Posted by
kdawson
on Thu Nov 29, 2007 10:31 AM
from the outdoing-the-southern-neighbours dept.
from the outdoing-the-southern-neighbours dept.
loconet writes "The government of Canada is preparing to attempt to bring a new DMCA-modeled copyright law in Canada in order to comply with the WIPO treaties the country signed in 1997. (These treaties were also the base of the American DMCA.) The new Canadian law will be even more restrictive in nature than the American version and worse than the last Canadian copyright proposal, the defeated Bill C-60. Among the many restrictive clauses in this new law, as Michael Geist explains, is the total abolishment of the concept of fair use: 'No parody exception. No time shifting exception. No device shifting exception. No expanded backup provision. Nothing.' Geist provides a list of 30 things that can be done to address the issues."
Related Stories
[+]
Swiss DMCA Quietly Adopted 137 comments
roady writes "We have seen a lot of talk over the years about the Canadian DMCA. But few know about the Swiss version recently adopted by law makers ... not even the Swiss people.
The government and media have been very quiet, probably to avoid a referendum. Indeed, Switzerland is a direct democracy and if 50,000 citizens sign a referendum, the whole country will have a chance to vote against the new copyright law. In this version of the DMCA, sharing a file on P2P networks will land you one year in jail, even though the law mandates a levy on blank media. The history of the law is available online."
[+]
Politics: Canadian DMCA Bill Withdrawn 198 comments
ToriaUru writes to let us know that Michael Geist is reporting that the Canadian Minister of Industry will not be introducing the proposed Canadian Digital Millennium Copyright Act legislation as scheduled. That proposed legislation, discussed here a couple of weeks back, is now reaching Canada's mainstream press. Geist doesn't speculate on why the legislation is being withdrawn, but it could have something to do with the massive popular outcry against the proposal that Geist helped to orchestrate.
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Wait a minute... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Insightful)
Note to Canadians: It's NOT a good idea to try to beat the US on everything!
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Informative)
The US complains about Canada's IP laws all the time. So every so often we introduce a new bill so we can point and say "see US, we're trying!". However the bill is purposely written to be so restrictive as to never, ever make it through 3 readings in the House of Commons. A bit wasteful, sure, but for the most part it keeps the americans off our backs.
Re:Wait a minute... (Score:5, Interesting)
[TMB]
Not news (Score:5, Informative)
Most of us here are embarrassed. Sorry, we'll vote better next time.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Not news (Score:5, Funny)
That was our excuse and I'm pretty sure we copyrighted it (or maybe we patented it, I get so confused these days). Give it back.
Besides, it doesn't work very well.
Re:Not news (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Not news (Score:5, Insightful)
American politics is the will of American corporations nowadays. It was US corporations which pressured the US government to strong arm everyone in the WIPO to adopt these rules.
The *AA's managed to influence the laws in many countries by influencing American politicians to serve their own purposes. We all lose.
Now that they have made almost everyone else adopt these laws, they've started to lobby the government to harmonize US laws with everyone else. So, they managed to get everyone else's laws updated so they could then get domestic laws updated.
How messed up is that?
Cheers
Re:Not news (Score:5, Interesting)
Which American politicians pushed on the members of the WIPO after they'd been lobbied by the *AAs.
The bending has already happened, and, yes, America were the original instigators of these measures. They insisted that everyone else adopt these laws, because they wanted to protect the American movie and music industries.
This is not adhering to international treaties that everyone else in the world decided we needed. It was in response to pressure from American interests that it all happened in the first place.
Bush is still an ass, but, I don't know if these measures were pushed on his watch or Clintons. But, don't pretend that American interests weren't being served when these treaties were signed.
Cheers
Re:Not news (Score:5, Insightful)
In fact, there is a concern that while legislation is being proposed to conform to treaties, the opportunity will be seized to extend the laws beyond what is strictly required. In particular, it was found [michaelgeist.ca] that some members of Canadian government are being influenced (financially, etc.) by U.S. lobbies. So, there is a real danger that overly restrictive laws get put in place in order to appease U.S. corporations (or the U.S. government, depending on how you want to look at it).
It's not as simple as saying that Canada must comply with the treaties it has signed. As you say, the law can be implemented in various ways, and we must all do our best to insure that they are implemented in sane, democratic, and freedom-preserving ways. (Which may mean not implementing them at all.)
Here's a suggestion: (Score:4, Insightful)
Geist's list of 30 things (Score:5, Informative)
Furthermore, some of it just plain good advice -- only buy DRM-free music and videos, release stuff under the Creative Commons licenses. And so forth.
Most of you are gonna be like, yeah, yeah, but no one cares. That's not true anymore. Now that the MAFIAA have become a nuisance and even public enemy #1 as far as some are concerned, the public will push for change. Like it or not, most politicians eventually cave to public opinion. After all, they need the public's support in order to get elected.
Finally! (Score:5, Funny)
Blame Canada! Woohoo!
Contact Your MP (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Contact Your MP (Score:5, Insightful)
My MP has responded in a timely manner to even emails that I've sent him about my opposition to specific pieces of legislation. I will wait until it is actually tabled before I start doing anything. Right now, it's just FUD. "A possible bill that may be proposed might have horrible consequences for the state of copyright in Canada."
The last straw (Score:5, Funny)
Re:The last straw (Score:5, Insightful)
A law without enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
So what's the use of a law if you're not to enforce it?
Re:A law without enforcement (Score:5, Insightful)
Selective enforcement.
They only enforce it when you need leverage over someone. And since practically everyone will be a rampant violator, whenever the government wants to shut somebody up, or suspect them of rape, murder, vandalism or whatever and can't prove it, they'll just charge them with 4000 counts of violation of this law, and threaten them with a billion dollar penalty.
Relationship w/ Government (Score:4, Interesting)
I can't find the reference, now, but thought it relevant. Maybe someone can find it?
So where's the bill? (Score:4, Insightful)
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=status&Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2 [parl.gc.ca]
This supposed "Super-DMCA" is nowhere on the list of house or private members bills.
The government never gets through its order of business anyways, so if this thing is supposed
to get tacked onto the end of the list at some future date, it's unlikely to even
get a reading during this session of parliament.
Sure smells like fear-mongering, rather than anything serious..
Unlikely (Score:5, Interesting)
That said, if there is any sort of Canadian Consumers user group that I could contribute to in order to help oppose ridiculous lobby-funded wastes of our government (and people!)'s time like this, I'd be more than willing to contribute...
Re:Unlikely (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Parody (Score:5, Funny)
Does this mean Weird Al will be banned from performing in Canada?