Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Canada Your Rights Online

"Canadian DMCA" Rising From the Dead 211

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This discussion has been archived.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 crucifer ( 697054 ) on Monday May 31, 2010 @11:53PM (#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.
  • by bmo ( 77928 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @12:17AM (#32414516)

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


  • The Bloc is in favor (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @12:57AM (#32414738)

    The Bloc has long been in favor of this, as another poster points out. From what I have heard, the media in Quebec have not covered the issue the way they have elsewhere in Canada. Last time, the Bloc actually complained that Bill C-61 did not go far enough.

    Still, the Conservatives do not wish to lose votes. The Bloc was in favor before, yet we managed to kill the bill.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @01:45AM (#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 Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @02:01AM (#32415098)

    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.

    The Prime Minister went to the governor general to dissolve parliament by his own choice because he wanted to get a quick opportunistic election in before the mini-depression hit, thus lessening the chance of the opposition parties dragging the voters to the polls again after the economy collapsed under the nose of the PM. The opposition was perfectly willing to leave the Conservatives in power long enough to let the economy nosedive on their watch before forcing an election.

    It should be noted that the PM broke his own fixed election date law by dissolving the minority parliament before losing a vote of confidence. Yes the law that he himself pushed through to prevent these opportunistic snap elections.

  • by mark-t ( 151149 ) <> on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @02:20AM (#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 Nuitari The Wiz ( 1123889 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @02:36AM (#32415334)

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

    Pirate Party of Canada

  • by DarwinSurvivor ( 1752106 ) on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @04:28AM (#32415806)
    Actually, the blank media tax only covers "music", Movies are apparently not included.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday June 01, 2010 @09:00AM (#32417248)

    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.

    Did you tell him that you won't be voting for him in the next election if he does? Did you tell him that you'll be joining a campaign to fight this, and you'll be publicizing his name for politicians that should be boycotted? Have you told your friends who are in the same riding to also call him up and say how they object to it?

"Oh my! An `inflammatory attitude' in alt.flame? Never heard of such a thing..." -- Allen Gwinn, allen@sulaco.Sigma.COM