Canada Introduces DMCA-Style Copyright Law 331
P Starrson writes "The Canadian government this afternoon kept one promise many could live
without. It introduced new copyright legislation that will bring
DMCA-style legislation to Canada (backgrounder
and FAQ
here but bill still not online). Professor Michael Geist has
apparently seen a copy and points out on his blog
that while the bill does not go as far as the United States, the
proposal is full of new rights for the music industry with precious
little for users."
is the toothpaste out of the tube yet? (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems like there's a new story on this a couple of times a week. I remember the very first time I heard anything at all (some Senator was pushing some nefarious bill that alledgedly was going to give some "rights" to the music manufactures to help them "control" music as it became more and more digital...). I laughed out loud to myself (is that possible?). Anyway, fast forward to today, and I'm amazed at the progress the music industry has made.
I watched in amazement as unexpected shills stepped forward to support the music industry in their quest to strip consumers' rights, most notably (or at least the one I can remember) Motley Crue. Further thought brought the logical conculusion these shills were entrenched in the music machine and stood to defend their obscene incomes... The bands that are popular are mostly (not all) there by serendipity. There are tons of excellent musicians out there waiting for their turn. So, Crue, et. al., dig in!
And now? Canada? Blame United States!
Regardless, I wish I wish a cohesive movement could arise and say, "no more", though I don't have a clue how to start that. Any good organizers in slashdot land? I don't know how a movement would manifest, but it seems groups have been able to pressure networks to not show shows, why can't the consuming music public apply similar pressure? I for one would be willing to commit to ZERO purchases of any media (dvd, sacd, cd, etc.) for one calendar year. Others? Other ideas?
Re:is the toothpaste out of the tube yet? (Score:4, Insightful)
Personally, I won't purchase anything from Metallica ever since the whole napster event (well, their stuff since then has sucked but that's besides the point). And no, I won't download it either.
Re:is the toothpaste out of the tube yet? (Score:4, Informative)
I for one do not buy RIAA music. Though I did buy two other CDs this year, and go to a concert.
I hope more people start doing the same.
Boycott? What boycott? (Score:5, Funny)
Q: "How come you're not selling as many CDs?"
A: "Because of piracy."
Q: "Are you sure it isn't because your music sucks?"
A: "Nope. Our research and focus groups have carefully developed a special style and formula that will generate hits as easy as using a cookie cutter. Each one is a guaranteed chart buster. The only reason they aren't is because of piracy."
Q: "What about the people boycotting sales of your CDs? Is that affecting your sales?"
A: "Boycott? Why would anyone boycott us? No, it's only a justification to pirate more music."
Q: "How come you haven't been able to establish a strong market in China?"
A: "Piracy. Duh!"
Q: "What about Antarctica?"
A: "Yup, piracy there too. Damn polar bears."
Q: "I hear that there's a new artist out that's selling really well. Is it because they're finally making fresh music that people enjoy?"
A: "Nope, it's because we've stepped up our efforts to fight piracy."
Q: "So I guess your shit don't stink, huh?"
A: "Pirates keep stealing it, so it doesn't linger long enough for the odor to fester."
Q: "Is there anything good that has come out of piracy?"
A: "Heck yeah! We're reaching incredible profit milestones thanks to our lawsuit business model. I strongly recommend it for any business, but don't follow SCO's example though."
Q: "Is there anything pirates are NOT to blame for?"
A: "Bush getting elected."
Re:is the toothpaste out of the tube yet? (Score:2)
That's two of us. I wonder how many more sales these guys lost?
FWIW I don't download. I buy. I'm sitting beside a shelf filled with bought and paid-for music, but I don't buy any more Metallica. The whining over Napster made me lose all respect for them.
Re:is the toothpaste out of the tube yet? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:is the toothpaste out of the tube yet? (Score:2)
Such movements are usually backed by religious groups, church organizations and such, center around "moral" opposition to controversial topics and have a regular Sunday audience with which to reach out and recruit their action committees from. Unless 'we' (the slashdot readership) can somehow get ordained as Mormon ministers and convince the citizens of Utah to threaten boycotts against anyone supporting or using the
Pro-Citizen Movement (Score:2)
I doubt anything less then a total revolution by the people will get the job done, and the 'industries' have a LOT of money, and have bought a LOT of laws to fight any 'rebellion'.
Re:is the toothpaste out of the tube yet? (Score:4, Informative)
Re:is the toothpaste out of the tube yet? (Score:2, Insightful)
It's the users, stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
When will "the users" realize that they elect the politicians?
Money can buy influence, but in the end it is each "user" in that voting booth that should be throwing out those elected officials that don't respect them!
Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm really really not trying to to start a flame war, an anti-Bush/Kerry flame war, or anything else about the past presidential election.
My point is politicians cater to those voting for them. And if the people voting for them don't care about the restrictions and the companies donating to their campaigns are encouraging these laws, then a politicians is going to pass these laws.
Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's good, because it would be REALLY off-topic in a thread about Canadian copyright law.
Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:3, Informative)
In addition to the fact the young people in the US don't vote, the flip side is the music industry putting money behind politicians. In a bipartisan system, it isn't a big issue to put money behind BOTH candidates. Analysis of party lines will notice that there is less of a difference between democrats and republicans than ever and both cater to special interests.
Young people don't vote in presidential elections, but more important
Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:4, Insightful)
Now, apart from that just not being a representative sample, I also asked them who they voted for.
All kinds of excuses came up. they were busy on the day, they don't vote out of protest, it was too far to travel, they just forgot.
So much for not knowing anyone who voted bush - most of them didn't know anybody who voted kerry either.
Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:2)
Re:sick of hearing this (Score:3, Informative)
And, if it's evident that your candidate had the advantage and lost then we can say that the system is corrupt and someone has to pay.
Look at the new democracies in eastern europe. People forced the system to change because their vote wasn't being counted or they demanded the system to be fixed.
my 0.02
Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:2, Interesting)
>politicians?
When will they realize that the elected government actually does represent the general consensus of the people?
To me, that's much scarier than any conspiracy theory.
Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:5, Insightful)
I don't think any of my elected officials even have copyright/IP issues on their platform. Even if I do vote against them because of their stand on that issue, they don't know it was because of that issue. They probably assume it was their stance on Iraq, or some other headline issue.
There are so few candidates that it's impossible to find one that I agree with on all issues. As for the states that elected the congressmen who introduce DMCA-like bills, I doubt it was because they wanted new copyright law.
Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:3, Insightful)
This is the real problem. Thanks to the polarization caused by our electoral system ("first past the post" elections virtually guarantee a two-party state), your only real choice at the ballot box is to vote for one set of positions, or another set of opposing positions. You can't vote for someone without supporting hi
Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:2)
Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:2, Informative)
Not enough.
Corporate interests run the world... (Score:3, Informative)
Where do *you* live? Most users don't matter. (Score:3, Informative)
Like the USA and UK, Canada uses a first past the post electoral system. More like the UK than US there are 3 significant parties (4 in Quebec) and the governing Liberal party received only 37% of the votes. In the UK, the governing Labour party received only 36% of the votes.
With first past the post electoral systems you get what are called safe seats, constituencies which constant
Also (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Also (Score:2, Informative)
- NDP: Here in BC we are still recovering from when they were last in power (provincially). They have good intentions but the economics just don't seem to work, unfortunantly.
- Block: The separtists... all they care about is Quebec. If they got in power it would probably cause a civil war or breakup of Canada.
- Canadian Acti
Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:2)
Re:It's the users, stupid! (Score:2)
It may take some obscene repression like you've described to help people wake up and take notice.
In Australia the federal government has been elected to such a position of power that they won't be able to help themselves and push through whatever the hell legislation they want. Subsequently people will realise (hopefully) that vesting absolute power in our elected monarch is a bad thing and if they can't stomach voting for the incompetant opposition party, they will likely be attracted to one of the small
better name? (Score:3, Funny)
Re:better name? (Score:2)
My humble suggestion (Score:5, Funny)
Mirror of All Links (Score:3, Informative)
P Starrson [mailto] writes "The Canadian government this afternoon kept one promise many could live without. It introduced new copyright legislation that will bring DMCA-style legislation to Canada (backgrounder [networkmirror.com] and FAQ [networkmirror.com] here but bill still not online). Professor Michael Geist [networkmirror.com] has apparently seen a copy and points out on his blog [networkmirror.com] that while the bill does not go as far as the United States, the proposal is full of new rights for the music industry with precious little for users."
Inaccurate Headline (Score:5, Informative)
Please don't make such misleading headlines.
Re:Inaccurate Headline (Score:2, Informative)
Unfortunately, the heritage minister in charge of this debacle has seen little evidence to support our cause. The one event [uottawa.ca] that was supposed to make her see the light failed miserably due to a lack of foresight from the organisers and poor arguments from the attendees.
In essence: we're screwed. Though we do have the advantage of our lawmakers not being bribed $179,000 b
Re:Inaccurate Headline (Score:3, Informative)
Who cares? WIPO isn't the word of God floating down to earth from heaven above. It's the result of a 1995 American bill (NII) under Clinton, which failed in Congress. The industry picked up the flame outside US borders in the WIPO committee under the United Nations. Basically this is a disgusting effort of the media industry to force their desires, which could not originally pass in the USA as law, upon the rest of the world. [refe [sysdesign.ca]
Schoolhouse Rock - I'm Just A Bill (Score:2, Funny)
OK, let's all sing along to Schoolhouse Rock - "I'm just a bill, yes, I'm only a bill, and I'm living up on Parliament Hill. And someday, the Dark Lord hopes and prays, that I will be a law, but today, I'm just a bill."
or words to that effect
So, the obvious next question (Score:2)
Re:So, the obvious next question (Score:5, Informative)
First, don't panic.
Once a bill is introduced, the following must happen. You should know this if you're a Canadian.
1. It is read for the first time in the House of Commons (which has apparently been done.)
2. The bill goes to the Senate, which will set up a committee to go over the bill and modify / approve it.
3. The modified bill will go to the HoC again for a second reading. If passed again, it returns to the Senate for further editing.
4. After the Senate looks over it again, it goes back to the HoC for a third reading and announcement. Once the law has been announced, then it goes into the Copyright Act.
Note that many laws have been passed but never announced, making them unenforceable.
To prevent this bill from being passed, do this:
1. Call and write and email your MP. It's free to do so in Canada. Go to their office and tell them that you want to talk about the bill. (Know the number before you go down.) Don't expect to meet with them. You just want the staff to know that someone was there about Bill C-X and who doesn't support it. Remember that they have their faxes full with US fundie groups complaining about gay marriage.
2. Tell them that you vote and your friends vote. This shouldn't be a lie. (I think that if someone says they don't vote, it's okay to hit them since it's self-defence.)
3. Tell them that if this passes, it's enough to get you to vote for a party that doesn't support it.
4. Remind them that free distribution of Canadian content keeps Canadian culture alive. (Hint: Tragically Hip >> Nickelback.)
5. Talk about the levy placed on blank media that compensates the recording industry.
Two other things of vital note:
1. In Canada, the loser pays the court costs. It's not like in the US where you can bankrupt someone by suing them. If you get in trouble, lawyer up. If your ISP calls, get them to forward all communication to your lawyer.
2. The ISP can charge for providing the information to the industry. I use Shaw, and I can't possibly see them passing up free money. I mean, come on, it's Shaw.
3. Set up a neighbourhood network. Get a good router and let your neighbours in on it. Keep the network open. Keep no records of who has what IP address. Then they have no idea who's doing the infriging since you don't know either!
Re:So, the obvious next question (Score:3, Informative)
Re:So, the obvious next question (Score:3, Insightful)
IMO, this should be the first point to mention, because this argument alone should be sufficient to either destroy completely any ambition from the CRIA to sue people or, at the very least, make the levy on blank media disappear.
But seriously, if the blank medias were not levied, do they even realize I would have hundreds (or most likely, thousands) of dollars in my pocket to spend on CDs, DVDs and shows I truly like. Ye
Re:So, the obvious next question (Score:3, Informative)
You forgot, be in violation of your acceptable use policy. Not only that, but also you are to be held responsible if you are aware of such activity.
Re:So, the obvious next question (Score:2)
Thank you, and don't forget to actually do the things I've told you to do!
Re:Inaccurate Headline (Score:5, Informative)
List of Canadian MPs [parl.gc.ca]
Find your MP by postal code (Score:4, Informative)
In other news... (Score:5, Funny)
What's worse (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's worse (Score:2)
If what they created is protected under the DMCA, then it's more evil to copy.
Acceptance of facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Until the anti-DMCA crowd accepts and acknowledges that, even though they produce crappy music, people are actively stealing significant quantities of music/movies, they will NEVER gain traction against the well organized lobbying groups.
The DMCA contains WAY TOO MANY horrible provisions, but the fact that it's defended so harshly by the RIAA/MPAA is indicative of the fact that they are quite desperate. Yes, the recent music sucks, but no, that's still no excuse to steal it. Until the anti-DMCA side is willing to accept a law that reinforces the standard copyright laws in a REASONABLE manner, there's very little chance that the DMCA is going away.
Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:2)
And I don't download movies, though I think that is not illegal either.
However, I agree with your claim that people arguing against laws like the DMCA need to admit that people download music without compensating the recording industry in the U.S. In Canada, on the other hand,
Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:5, Insightful)
It seems that if the anti-DMCA crowd (disclaimer: I'm one of them) were to admit that, then the recording industry would simply say, "See? Those criminals even admit that they're stealing our work! We can't stop at just the DMCA. We have to add DRM, harsher civil and criminal penalties for stealing, and everything else we can possibly do. If we don't, we'll go bankrupt because the pirates are cutting into our revenue stream."
Obviously, locking us in isn't working. I propose an alternative business method: quality service. It works something like this:
- Stop suing your customers. I postulate that the vast majority of people being sued for trading have purchased at least a few CDs. Suing them is just going to irritate them and cause them not to make any other purchasers. It also irritates people who are totally legit, like me.
- Stop forcing DRM on customers. It adds to the cost of the product, is easily bypassed by whomever wants to, and makes paying customers feel like they're criminals that can't be trusted.
- Sell cheaper, and make up the difference on volume. More people would buy an album for $7.99 than they would at $21.99.
Those are the facts. It's a shame the RIAA (and the Canuck equivilent) won't accept them.Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:2)
You should buy from people who offer goods or services which seem like a fair exchange to you. If you do not like the terms that big record labels attach to their music, you don't have to accept them. What's that? But you still want their music? Well, they don't have to sell it to you on your terms if they don't want to, the same way you didn't have to buy it on theirs.
The fact that people still buy it despite the restrictions means that the pleasure of li
Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:3, Insightful)
1. "Stop suing your customer." I have millions of customers. When I sue just a few, I can settle out of court for more money than they will ever exchange with me in trade. As long as I don't sue everybody everywhere, I can gain money from claims and show people I mean business. Lawsuits are very common and few people pay attention to defending "pirates" and "thieve
Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:2)
My service costs about $80 per month. With a lot of channels.
I can even record shows--as many as I like. I could easily max out tapes and DVD-Rs with content. But since I'm going to have content for months to come, I only bother with one or two shows a month.
I don't bother with stealing movies that will show up on the broadcast. If I gave a friend a Seinfeld episode-- I don't think it would effect the revenue of the network.
How much do I spend buying music? About $0. Maybe in a year, I
Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:2)
For possibly the trillionth time since Sean released napster, it is not theft. It's really a very simple concept. The law defines this as copyright infringement.
That phrase doesn't carry enough emotional impact and moral outrage as 'theft' and 'pirates', but it is nevertheless true.
I do not feel that laws need to be adjusted based on copyright infringment, especially when it is happening at a grassroots level. Nor do I feel that someone is a criminal (copyright infringem
Re:Acceptance of facts - but is it stealing? (Score:3, Insightful)
But is it stealing if you never would have bought it anyway. The music/movie industry would have you believe that every download is a lost sale at full retail price, yet you are not railing against this untruth from the industry.
To me, stealing is taking a tangible object. Stealing a CD from a music store has taken something of value that cost money to produce. A downl
Re:Acceptance of facts - but is it stealing? (Score:4, Insightful)
Exactly. The reason theft is wrong isn't that you get something for nothing; it's that you deprive the owner of the use of what you stole. If I take your car, you can't drive; if I take your CD, you can't listen to it. But if I make a copy of a song on your CD, we can both listen to it; I gain something, but you lose nothing. It makes no sense to speak of stealing something that isn't scarce.
Furthermore, even in cases where downloading a song causes someone not to buy it, it still isn't stealing. No one owns their expected revenue, and no one has the right to demand money from everyone who enjoys something they worked on. Negative reviews are responsible for more loss of expected revenue than any illegal copying - should we lock up Roger Ebert for preventing movie studios from getting the profit that's rightfully theirs?
Re:Acceptance of facts - but is it stealing? (Score:4, Insightful)
You're making a classic mistake here. You're entirely correct, of course, that the time it takes to make a program, a song, or a movie is a limited resource, but once that time has already been put into making it, the program/song/movie itself is not scarce.
I also write software for a living, so I know as well as you do that programming time and talent is scarce. But there's a difference between programming and programs. Just like a mechanic or a barber, I don't worry about what someone else wants to do with the fruits of my labor, since I've already been paid for it. The only way someone could "steal" my labor as a programmer would be to sit me in front of a computer and force me to write code.
When you distribute works (books, music, movies, software, whatever) without the copyright owner's permission you are stealing something: the compensation to which the author is entitled for creating it.
If you don't own something, no one can steal it from you - and you don't own potential revenue.
Moreover, the author isn't entitled to get paid just because he made something. If Universal Studios spends $200 million and two years making a terrible movie, and it gets such bad reviews that no one ever buys a ticket, have the reviewers "stolen" something from them? Of course not.
And more importantly, even if everyone who reads those bad reviews decides to download the movie instead of buying a ticket, the studio still isn't entitled to anything. They're in exactly the same situation whether those people download the movie or just sit at home doing nothing; the only difference is that in one scenario, those people get to watch the movie anyway, which harms no one (except themselves, if it really is that bad).
But you must know this already. Otherwise, I must presume you have nothing against taking GPL code and selling it as closed binaries.
Actually, in a world where everyone was free to reverse engineer, decompile, change, and redistribute software, I wouldn't have much of a problem with that. Thing is, we don't live in that world, we live in one where misusing GPL'd code creates an unfair advantage.
But the UNfair use that so many are trying to justify with the above "argument", and which is practiced on a massive scale, makes elected representatives easier to convince that these laws are necessary.
One man's "fair" is apparently another man's "UNfair". Take the trading of TV shows, for instance: last night, due to a TiVo scheduling mishap, I missed the new episode of a popular show. Luckily, I was able to download it via BT a couple hours later. Nothing wrong with that, right? Whether I watch it on TiVo or on my PC, the result's the same: I have a recording and I watch it hours after the show airs.
Now what if I didn't have TiVo, and I just downloaded the show every week? Still fair? After all, whether I pay $13 to TiVo every month shouldn't affect my ability to watch this show; TiVo has nothing to do with the show. Same argument applies if I don't own a TV.
And yet the studios are still up in arms about TV shows being traded, and every pro-copyright argument applies just as well to free-to-air TV shows as it does to songs and movies. Copyright isn't about getting paid, it's about dictating the terms under which someone can reproduce a chunk of information.
Re:Acceptance of facts - but is it stealing? (Score:2)
If you wouldn't have bought it anyway, then why did you download it? The truth is at some price you would have bought it, but the price was higher than that, so you set the price at $0, and took it without the sellers consent. A trade requires an agreement between seller and buye
Re:Acceptance of facts - but is it stealing? (Score:2)
It's not stealing. It's copyright infringement.
Stop trying to compare the two. It's like comparing stealing a loaf of bread from the grocery store to using someone else's trademark.
Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:5, Insightful)
Not to Godwin this, or to put too fine a point on it, but this is like the Nazis saying they'll be reasonable if only their targets will wear little stars.
YOU CANNOT BE REASONABLE WITH UNREASONABLE PEOPLE
The RIAA and MPAA are exactly that: intractably unreasonable. We have DECADES of evidence right from their leaders' mouths documenting this clearly. These are people who believe the advent of the 8-track and then casette recorders were very very bad and dangerous ideas that played into mankind's original sin and gave him tools that he might be a thief. The VCR was a tool of bad nasty people who would steal money from the mouth of Steven Spielberg.
You cannot begin to overestimate or overstate their lunatic idiocy. There is NO such thing as fair use for these people, they have NO concept of technology as it applies to demographics of adoption and usage and methods of applying technology to making proft, despite Apple's runaway success at putting iTunes to the public, and they have NO interest in listening to reason.
Compromise? When they agree publicly that copyright was not ever intended and should not ever be used as a tool of permanent monopoly over ideas and expression of same by any organization, when they publicly apologize for suing CHILDREN for piracy, when they admit publicly that THERE IS such a thing as FAIR USE. I put this at the same chance of happening as flying pig racing becoming the newest prime time sport show.
Personally, I say anyone who shills for them should have their entire catalog of publicly availible IP pirated and spread around to as many places as possible in a show of defiance. They need to learn that they WILL lose this war with the public and that we WILL defy them until they wave the white flag, smell the coffee, grow up, and get with the present day.
Notice I didn't say that their IP needed to be exprienced, just copied. I wouldn't listen to Motley Crue or Metallica if you paid me and I've never had the slightest interest in downloading one of their songs. But I would do it just to send a message.
Until then, they give no quarter, we give them none. They aren't desperate. They're greedy and stupid. If I was a pop musician relying on these people to keep me in the money, I'd get my head checked, fire these fools, and adopt a strategy that was in sync with the year 2005 and not 1955.
Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:2)
Stealing is bad because it causes incontravertable harm, the reason laws against it have been on the books for as long as books have existed. That's why it's called a crime.
The RIAA members have yet to prove incontravertable harm in a manner a disinterested third party can accept. Until then calling downloads 'stealing' is propaganda. The societal costs for enacting laws based on propaganda will be immense, far far far outweighin
Re:Acceptance of facts (Score:3, Insightful)
That sir, is because it is not theft, it is copyright infringement.
Theft is depriving the rightful owner of a tangible object. Making a copy of something does not do this.
I will readily admit to you, right now, that many people infringe copyright simply because they do
You arent a big company? (Score:2, Insightful)
when is the recording industry going to start charging for singing inthe shower?
Re:You arent a big company? (Score:2)
The USA (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:The USA (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:The USA (Score:2)
Interesting bit (Score:4, Informative)
FTA (emphasis mine) This does not alter the right to make a personal copy (including a P2P download) but does set some tough limits on what users are entitled to do with those copies.
That will be next on the entertainment cartel's radar.
Thanks a lot, neighbours... (Score:5, Funny)
I place the blame squarely on you, America. This was a great place to live, to go to school, to pirate music and raise kids until you moved in across the border.
Sincerely,
Canada.
Re:Thanks a lot, neighbours... (Score:2)
Flamebait? C'mon, man, it was a joke!
That'll teach me to omit the smiley. ;)
What should be reqired... (Score:4, Insightful)
And please try to restrain yourself from the obvious follow-up that they'll never have to do this because eternal copyright is just around the corner.
No more levy? (Score:4, Insightful)
DMCA isn't a problem, lack of 'loser pays all' is (Score:4, Insightful)
Applied with a good sense of creative nonsense it can protect anybody from anything.
Apply the DMCA to ways to access your personal data and sue anybody who sends you comercial mail into next wednesday.
The DMCA only becomes so oppresive in the US because they don't have the 'loser pays all' paradigm. Which is the only way any civil legal system makes sense. Not having 'loser pays all' is the next best thing to corporate fascism (sic).
Here in germany I have a friend that has trouble with big players in his field bringing up heavy legal caliber against him (he's into booksales on the web and it's about the german pricefixing law for books, even Pearson is involved). He goes to state court this month and if the corporate assholes lose he can carry on doing his business. In the US he'd be broke allready.
Bottom line: Add 'loser pays all legal expenses of trial' to the system and have every hotdog stand apply the DMCA to each and everyt aspect of their small business - and the insanity of this law becomes aparent to anybody with basic brain functions. And it will eventually disapear.
Re:DMCA isn't a problem, lack of 'loser pays all' (Score:2, Interesting)
Common enough misconception - one that undoubtedly scares a lot of people into giving up rights.
Court fees are not as expensive as you've been led to believe. If I'm ever sued, there's no way I'll give up one single item of process. Have a hearing on EVERYTHING, and don't waive your right to have a jury at EVERY hearing.
Doesn't cost that much. I've done it. Won, too.
"Loser pays all legal expenses?" The obvious abuse there is for someone to file suit on some triv
Re:DMCA isn't a problem, lack of 'loser pays all' (Score:2)
First, the judge who is going to hear the case will try to arbtirate it. This also gives him or her the benefit of finding out who is being a dick.
The three things you can sue for are:
1. Actual Costs. i.e. I broke your new TV. The receipt was for $450. Includes legal fees.
2. Projected Lost Money. i.e. If I get debilatated, I'd sue for my pay with raises x the number of yea
You know what? We could actually have a chance. (Score:2, Informative)
By this, i mean the fact that we have a MINORITY government ( to all you Us people, this means the party ion power has less votes than the majority required to actually vote things. which means, they have to ally somehow with other parties to pass laws).
Tonight, i'm getting all the email addresses o
Minority governments (Score:2)
They spent $2 billion registering guns, after they said it would cost $2 million and screwed it up so bad the registry is useless.
Then they literally stole millions in cash in their own little friends and family program.
Don't worry, Ontario will re-elect the Liberals again. There is some unnatural fear of the Conservatives that will keep them from cleaning up the mess. At least the NDP won't run the country,
I wouldn't want to think of what would happend to our economy if t
MOD PARENT UP (Score:2)
Imitation (Score:2)
This has a very good chance of dying... (Score:4, Interesting)
I think the bill was introduced as a way of deflecting criticism for delaying implementation of recent WIPO intellectual property agreements and to appease lobby groups clamouring for action on the "theft" of music and movies on the internets after several reverses by the courts.
Re:This has a very good chance of dying... (Score:2)
Tony Valeri just announced that he's put forth a motion to extend the sitting in the house. It may still happen.
They lie right in the FAQ (Score:5, Interesting)
Circumvention for the purposes of making private copies of sound recordings will not be permitted, however.
See the Copyright act section 80
http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-42/39673.html#rid-
At the very least they shouldn't lie in the FAQ describing a new law.
Time to contact your MP, remember it is free to snail mail them.
I hope it passes.... (Score:2)
as fast as the marijuana bill did.
harummmmph
Bill not Law and who will pass it? (Score:2, Interesting)
There are four parties right in the Commons with two independants as tiebreakers. Since the Liberals introduced the bill they are obviously going to vote for it.
That means they need the support of one more party (and possibly an independant) if this bill
NDP supports WIPO ratification (Score:3, Informative)
Summary:
Liberal - Middle of the road. Basically For.
NDP - For
BQ - For
Conservatives - Against
Green - Against
Very surprised particularly at the NDP and Conservatives stance. I voted Green last time in any case.
The full text of the Toronto Star article linked from the link above to avoid registration:
Parties the same? Not on tech issues
Surprising answers emerge from surveys
With much at stake, ther
Sigh (Score:3, Informative)
Personally, I will never again buy music or media that originates from an artist under the membership of one of the industry associations (CRIA, RIAA, MPAA) that has lobbied governments and fooled our politicans. From now on it's rentals and second-used (used) media only for me. Please help keep your money out of the hands of these associations; they are already dying, let's finish them off.
I will not shed a tear for them. These ridiculous laws are not in the best interest of citizens or consumers, at all. You can't convince me otherwise no matter how you spin it.
Attention, Citizens of Canada... (Score:4, Informative)
The following is mentioned every time a Slashdot story is posted about Canadian copyright law, but it deserves to be repeated: fellow Canadians, if you want to do something constructive about this, there is a website set up to lobby against this bill, at http://www.digital-copyright.ca/ [digital-copyright.ca]
According to that site, there is a Member of Parliament (MP) with an interest in this issue, who presented the first petition against this bill back in April 2005 [digital-copyright.ca] around the time the first Slashdot story broke, and a second petition in May [digital-copyright.ca]: Peter Julian [peterjulian.ca], New Democratic Party (NDP), MP Burnaby-New Westminster.
Please WRITE your MP before Summer, and in Fall (Score:3, Informative)
Written Friday March 25 2005
Please write your MP on this matter. Use my letter below if you don't want to write your own.
Send your letter for free (no postage necessary when parliament is in session; summer is approaching), to your MP at the following address:
[your MP's name] M.P.
House of Commons
Ottawa ON K1A 0A6
Find their email address, but write by paper mail too. http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/ho
Dear Mr. Breitkreuz
To summarize the issues in this letter:
1. Internet Service Providers should not be required to keep extensive logs of private and legal online communications.
2. The government must not stop Canadian citizens from making personal-use copies of their legally purchased software, music, and movie media.
Background:
http://pch.gc.ca/progs/ac-ca/progs/pda-cpb/reform
Here is the reasoning:
The purpose of the Copyright Act is to support creativity and innovation in the arts and culture. To design a new Act on the failed and draconian Digital Millenium Copyright Act of the United States of America, would be a disaster for Canadian culture, and innovation. Also our court system could become clogged with law abiding citizens who make personal use copies of their music, software, and movie collections for no personal financial gain. An implementation of the proposed changes to the Copyright Act would unleash another "Gun Registry boondoggle" onto the Canadian people - creating criminals out of law abiding citizens at the expense of Canadian taxpayers.
Internet Service Providers like Sasktel should not be made to keep extensive client usage logs for possible future prosecution by various copyright-based industries. I don't want to pay for that system to be put into effect, and I don't think most people do. The phone companies are not forced by the government to record the content of phone conversations, only police can do that with a proper warrant. ISP logs are going to be equivalent to phone-taps, and that's a violation of my privacy. It's doing the job of the police, and is for the sole benefit of an industry basing its profits on an outdated business model that is no longer realistic for the Canadian government to protect.
It is completely unfair to be paying a levy to artists organizations for purchasing blank CD media to make home-use private copies of legal CD music, and now to also be unable to legally copy the music I've paid for off of Digital Rights Managed CDs. If copying CD music is going to be illegal, why is the government collecting money from the product for an illegal activity? I'm satisfied that the current levy is helping to compensate artists from illegitimate copying, and no new law is required to prevent me and other people from making sensible backups of our legal music, software, and movie collections.
Your representation in the House of Commons on this matter is greatly appreciated by me, and other supporters of personal liberty and innovation in the arts. I look forward to hearing from you.
Sincerely,
my name
Re:No new rights - Didn't you forget something? (Score:2)
Didn't you forget something here. The part about for a limited time.
Re:No new rights (Score:2)
This is the phrase "Intellectual property rights" converted to a hexadecimal number:
496e74656c6c65637475616c 70726f7065727479 726967687473
Everybody knows that digits can not be copyrighted, and digital files are just that.
Re:have their cake and eat it too (Score:2)
Re:have their cake and eat it too (Score:2)
I can forsee a Charter challenge (our constitution to our American readers) which guarantees freedom of expression.
I am unsure how constitutional a law can be that makes it illegal to do something that is explicitly legal... however the issue is contentious, as several Canadian laws are like this. For example, it is (strictly speaking) legal to have sex with a prostitute, however soliciting, communicating, or living off of the avial
Re:My plan... (Score:5, Insightful)
His analysis says pretty clearly that downloading through p2p is still considered legal. It always will be as long as there's still a levy on every blank media purchase.
According to TFA, the real concern is that this *bill* (still hasn't been passed into law) would make it illegal to circumvent anti-piracy mechanisms on CDs and such. In other words, if there's garbling to prevent playing a CD on a computer (and likely old CD players too), it'd be illegal to hook up your CD player's line out to your computer's line in and record the songs directly. Likewise, it'd become illegal to circumvent some proprietary copy protection that collects your name and vitals when you rip a recording for personal use.
The only conclusion I can make is that they really don't want people buying their crap, which is an objective I'm more than happy to help with. If it happens, then I guess my solution would be to switch back to cassettes... for all of one album every couple of years.
Re:My plan... (Score:3, Insightful)
Of course, being able to download legally isn't exactly worth much if it's not legal for someone else to upload. That was, IIRC, actually a point made by the original judge in the CRIA case up here, but the appeals court quashed that because it made a conclusion of legality far too early in the proceedings.
Unfortunate, although probably
Re:My plan... (Score:3, Informative)
True enough. But I can't be prosecuted for somebody else breaking the law. I don't do a whole lot of downloading anyway (one great thing about liking mostly stuff that's older than you are is that eventually you find yourself with a complete collectio
Re:Oh noes! (Score:2)
Even though ThePirateBay might not have to close down immediately at 1st of July due to the legislators really f*cking up the thing they were aiming for not thinking about outlawing BT-like techniques, it is still quite horrid.
Things that has been discussed in other part of this thread, like breaking copy protection mechanisms, are being made illegal, however crappy they are (s
Party Stance on Copyright & IP Reform (Score:2)
Your local MP will soon be campaigning for your vote or seeking a nomination in your riding. Grill them on their position on Copyright, Open Source Software, and User Rights issues. This is an issue that has been virtually ignored, the fact is
Re:So? Write your own music. (Score:2)
UPDATE:The end of Anonymous Access in Canada? (Score:3, Informative)
From the bill:
40.2 (1) A person described in paragraph
40.1(1)(a) or (b) [ie, an ISP] who receives a notice of
claimed infringement that complies with subsection
40.1(2) has an obligation, on being paid
any fee that the person has lawfully charged for
the performance of that obligation,
So, the upshot, if I interpret this correctly, is that if you provide Internet access or proxy services or hosting free of charge, you're not obligated to