Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
chconline

The Canadian version of DCMA.

Recommended Posts

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/11/canad...ustry-mi-1.html

 

Here it is, folks, at long last: Industry Canada Minister Jim Prentice is about to introduce his Canadian version of America's disastrous Digital Millennium Copyright Act tomorrow. In so doing, he is violating his own party's promise to seek public consultation on all treaty accession bills, he's ignoring the cries of rightsholders, industry, educators, artists, librarians, citizens' rights groups, legal scholars and pretty much everyone with a stake in this, except the US Trade Representative and the US Ambassador, who, apparently, have had ample opportunity to chat with the Minister and give him his marching orders.

 

Watch this space -- we'll have all kinds of ways for you to call your MP, the Minister's office, and everyone else with a say in this sordid, ugly sellout. In 1998, the US bill criminalized the majority of American net-users at the stroke of a pen with a bill that cost tens of thousands of downloaders their life's savings, allowed the entertainment industry to destroy innovative companies and devices, and did not reduced infringement or pay a single artist. Ten years of this misery and absurdity, ten years of trying to make the Internet worse at copying, and all it's done is drive a rift between customers and musicians and allowed the music industry to piss away the business opportunity of a lifetime with lawsuits and saber-rattling.

 

Canada can do better. Certainly, it can't possibly do any worse -- unless men like Prentice continue to make law without allowing Canadians to get a say in it.

 

Government of Canada to Table Bill to Amend the Copyright Act

 

OTTAWA, June 11, 2008 -- The Honourable Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry, and the Honourable Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, and Minister for La Francophonie, will deliver brief statements and answer media inquiries shortly after the tabling of a bill to amend the Copyright Act. Members of the media will also be able to attend a technical briefing and lock-up prior to the tabling of the bill to amend the Copyright Act.

 

http://www.citynews.ca/news/news_23740.aspx

 

People caught downloading bootlegged music or other material would face a $500 penalty under new legislation introduced Thursday by the Conservative government.

 

But it's unclear how violators would get caught, suggesting illegal downloading might be like playing a kind of legal Russian roulette.

 

Industry Minister Jim Prentice sought middle ground between copyright holders who want strict protection for their intellectual property, and Internet users accustomed to downloading material for free.

 

"This bill balances the rights of creators on one hand and consumers on the other," he said.

 

The current copyright law -- intended to catch commercial cheaters -- carries a maximum penalty of $20,000 for each infringement. Amendments to the Copyright Act proposed by Prentice would reduce that to a one-time, $500 penalty for all infringements.

 

The industry minister suggested the amendments are meant to safeguard parents against astronomical fines if their children are caught illegally downloading reams of copyrighted material.

 

"At present time, for the kinds of things you're speaking about, teenagers and their families are exposed to statutory damages that would run from $500 to $20,000 per work that is infringed," Prentice said.

 

"It's clearly intended to protect consumers in respect of what might technically be an infringement, but relates to personal, private use."

 

The amendments would also make it illegal to copy a compact disc or DVD to a personal digital device such as an IPod -- even if you've paid for it -- if it involves breaking a so-called digital lock to make a copy.

 

People caught hacking digital locks or uploading copyrighted material to file-sharing websites would face penalties of up to $20,000.

 

Posting copyrighted material to the popular social-networking website Facebook, or the video-sharing website YouTube, qualify as infringements under the new legislation.

 

"I think what the government is doing is they're distinguishing between the person who is downloading and the person who is uploading," said Barry Sookman from the law firm McCarthy Tetrault.

 

"This gets after the person who is making the files available."

 

It's not clear how the government expects to enforce the legislation, which has been in limbo since the Conservatives first put it on the House of Commons order paper in December.

 

Mark Hayes, a partner at the law firm of Blake, Cassels and Graydon, calls the penalties on downloaders "more a symbolic thing."

 

"In practical terms the likelihood it will ever be imposed is not all that great," he said.

 

Liberal MP Scott Brison called the legislation "half-baked" and chastised the Tories for not having an enforcement plan.

 

"The government has not thought this through. The government does not know how it will enforce these provisions," he said.

 

Halifax HMV employee Todd Chapman, 29, says the legislation won't change people's downloading habits.

 

"It is kind of meaningless," he said. "I don't think it's going to act as a deterrent at all ... it's impossible."

 

But Mike Murphy of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce says the bill will enshrine creators' rights in law.

 

"We didn't have any rights for creators in this kind of an era, and I think that's clearly been acknowledged here," he said.

 

Canada's current copyright law was drawn up long before personal computers and IPods were in every home.

 

The amendments would let consumers copy legally acquired music onto portable audio players and cell phones, which the current law does not allow. Consumers could make one copy for each device they own, as long as any digital locks aren't hacked.

 

American industry groups had lobbied Ottawa to follow the U.S. government's lead in restricting people from making backup copies of legally-purchased CDs and DVDs.

 

The U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act has drawn criticism for exposing people who have downloaded music illegally to huge lawsuits by the record labels.

 

Sookman says it isn't likely the Canadian music industry will start going after illegal downloaders. The legal costs of doing so far outweigh the $500 copyright holders could recover in court.

 

The Canadian music industry lost a court battle in 2005 when it tried to force Internet service providers to provide the names of downloaders.

 

The Tory amendments include provisions to address the liability of Internet service providers and the role they should play in curbing copyright-infringing activities on their networks.

 

Internet service providers will remain exempt from copyright liability, but they will have to notify customers who are accused of copyright infringement. The providers would also have to keep customer records, which they are currently not forced to do by law.

 

The bill would also allow consumers to record television and radio programs to watch or listen to later. And it would allow Internet programs to be recorded as long as they are simultaneously aired on television or radio.

 

But forget about amassing a library of recordings. The legislation puts unspecified limits on how long recordings would be allowed to be kept for later viewing. Department officials weren't able to say how long recordings would be allowed to be kept.

 

The Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists called the legislation "a good first step for artists."

 

"This is only a first step -- because film and television performers need a full set of rights under copyright law, the same as every other artist," ACTRA national president Richard Hardacre said in a statement.

 

Consumers would be allowed to make one copy of any book, newspaper, magazine, photograph or video cassette for each device they own. There are also new exceptions for some educational and research purposes.

 

Detailed Look At Proposed Changes To Copyright Law

 

The Conservative government argues that "over the last decade, digital technology has evolved so dramatically that reforms to the Copyright Act are long overdue." Here's what they're proposing:

 

* To enact Bill C-59, which will amend the criminal code and focus on the unauthorized recording of movies.

* To work with other international trading partners towards a possible Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).

* To balance the rights of those who hold copyright with the needs of users to access copyright works.

* The Copyright Act must provide clear, predictable and fair rules to allow Canadians to derive benefits from their creations.

* The Copyright Act should foster innovation in an effort to attract investment and high-paying jobs to Canada.

* Canada must ensure that its copyright framework for the Internet is in line with international standards.

 

What does it mean for you?

 

You'd still be allowed to record a single copy of television, radio program, or simulcast webstream, but on two conditions: you access it in a "legitimate" fashion, and you watch it within a "reasonable" time frame.

 

You could copy a legally acquired sound recording to each separate device you own, such as an MP3 player and a computer. Some conditions would apply to the use of this exception. The individual must not have circumvented a technological measure ™ or digital lock to make the copy, for example.

 

A "private transfer of format" exception would let you make a single copy of legally acquired books, newspapers, periodicals, videocassettes and photographs to various devices you own. This is often referred to as "format shifting." Again, there would be conditions to guide the use of this exception, such as the requirement that the copy of the source material could only be used by the owner of the material for private purposes.

 

Your fines for breaching any part of the Copyright Act could be reduced, if your activity was private and non-commercial. For example, in lieu of the maximum amount of statutory damages (which currently can be as high as $20 000 per infringement), a fixed amount of $500 would be payable, providing TMs or digital locks were not hacked in the process. However, you could still be on the hook for other types of damages or remedies.

 

 

Digg: http://digg.com/gaming_news/URGENT_MESSAGE...fe_is_in_danger

Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6315846683

 

At CCER:

 

Send A Letter To Harper, Prentice & Verner And Stop The Canadian DMCA

 

To: Rt. Hon. Stephen Harper, Prime Minister

To: Hon. Jim Prentice, Minister of Industry

To: Hon. Josée Verner, Minister of Canadian Heritage

Dear Ministers,

 

I am disturbed that the Government will move forward in the coming days and introduce copyright reform legislation that has been engineered without proper public consultation and without adhering to its own accountability mandates by failing to table the WIPO treaties for a period of 21 sitting days before introducing the legislation for which these treaties provide the framework for modernizing Canadian Copyright laws.

 

It is not too late to reconsider the dangerous approach currently being taken to copyright reform in Canada. As a concerned Canadian consumer and voter, I urge you to enshrine the following principles in the Copyright Act:

 

Any amendments to the Copyright Act must not prohibit the development and manufacturing of circumvention devices and technologies, commercial trade of circumvention devices and technologies, the possession and/or utilization of any device or technology that can circumvent a TPM or DRM for a non-infringing purpose or otherwise lawful activity such as fair dealing, interoperability, time and format shifting.

 

The Copyright Act should be amended to bring the backup copy provision into the 21st century by expanding the right to make an archival backup copy to all digital consumer products regardless of format or media.

 

Amendments to the Copyright Act seeking to add provisions relating to the liability of Internet intermediaries and subscriber actions should take a “notice and notice” approach that will provide the best balance between the protection of intellectual property rights and the fundamental rights of individual and academic expression.

 

Amendments to the Copyright Act need to ensure that statutory damages are limited and users must be protected from statutory damages if the user has good-faith to believe their use of the protected work was fair and non-infringing, or if the user is engaged in purely private and non-commercial activity.

 

http://www.ccer.ca/send-a-letter-to-harper...-canadian-dmca/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, I'll probably get burned by what I have to say, but this law is just crap (excuse my language). You buy a CD or DVD, but you're still not allowed to put it on your iPod or MP3 Player. To me this belaw should only be for those who share the files like music, and movies. to 100,000 people online. If you download you shouldn't be fined for nothing, but lets say you buy a CD so rip it to your computer and you post it on Peer-to-Peer sites or software then you should be getting fined not the people who download it.

 

Another thing I don't like about this law is that to know that if I download music or movies illegally that my ISP can give out my address to the person who wants to sue me for doing it; like that's almost like invasion of privacy like you wouldn't go out and give your phone number or address or social security number to a total stranger that you've never met before in your life would you? And just think of teens out there who do download illegally if they do get caught and if they got no job you think they'll be able to pay 500 bucks for a fine or even 20,000 bucks worth of damages they've committed? U.S. has a same law and they've pretty much took peoples life savings cause they fined them so high down there and the same will happen here it's kinda scary to think that your life can be over just by downloading illegally or even by putting something from CD or DVD onto your iPod? And how are they gonna know if I download illegally or if I put a something from CD or DVD onto my iPod or MP3 Player; they just gonna come into my house? It's kinda scary. Anyway give me your guys viewpoint of what I said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For music:

 

The amendments would let consumers copy legally acquired music onto portable audio players and cell phones, which the current law does not allow. Consumers could make one copy for each device they own, as long as any digital locks aren't hacked.

 

Why is this a bad thing for me?

 

 

For DVDs:

 

I'd like to get information to not break the "conditions" when format shifting my DVDs. I'd like to watch legally acquired DVDs of my favorite episodes without any guilt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, I'll probably get burned by what I have to say, but this law is just crap (excuse my language). You buy a CD or DVD, but you're still not allowed to put it on your iPod or MP3 Player. To me this belaw should only be for those who share the files like music, and movies. to 100,000 people online. If you download you shouldn't be fined for nothing, but lets say you buy a CD so rip it to your computer and you post it on Peer-to-Peer sites or software then you should be getting fined not the people who download it.
You could copy a legally acquired sound recording to each separate device you own, such as an MP3 player and a computer. Some conditions would apply to the use of this exception. The individual must not have circumvented a technological measure ™ or digital lock to make the copy, for example.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canadians currently pay a substantial 'copy right' fee when we buy things like MP3 Players, Harddrives, Blank Disc's, Cassette Tapes etc and that fee is given to the government, who gives it to the Copy Right group, who then is supposed to give it to the artists. If I'm already paying for this, why would the law need to be changed?

 

I think what they need to do, is concentrate on the piraters who go into movie theaters and steal the movies. Stupid idiots in Government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's what they are doing. :P

 

The new bill, on paper, is indicated and interpreted in the City News source as the following:

 

"The current copyright law -- intended to catch commercial cheaters -- carries a maximum penalty of $20,000 for each infringement. Amendments to the Copyright Act proposed by Prentice would reduce that to a one-time, $500 penalty for all infringements."

 

But then it says:

 

"Sookman says it isn't likely the Canadian music industry will start going after illegal downloaders. The legal costs of doing so far outweigh the $500 copyright holders could recover in court." - as "what the government is doing is they're distinguishing between the person who is downloading and the person who is uploading"

 

Which is, an opinion of Sookman, a lawyer at a law firm according to the secondary source. However, his opinion is valid.

 

Secondly, it mentions in the bottom:

 

"You'd still be allowed to record a single copy of television, radio program, or simulcast webstream, but on two conditions: you access it in a "legitimate" fashion, and you watch it within a "reasonable" time frame.

 

You could copy a legally acquired sound recording to each separate device you own, such as an MP3 player and a computer."

 

I think that's reasonable, and in regards to the 'time frame', no one's going to search your house for some episodes of Simpsons your recorded.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For me personally, I must say it really depends. On one side it may stop pirates but the problem is that it seems to hamper legal owners of software, music, etc. too. Just like Starforce or Safedisk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another thing I don't like about this law is that to know that if I download music or movies illegally that my ISP can give out my address to the person who wants to sue me for doing it; like that's almost like invasion of privacy

 

Your address is not private. I can follow anybody home to find where they are living. That's like saying putting government cameras on the streets, or in your car (which I fully support) is an invasion of privacy. The truth of the matter is that PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU WHEN YOU'RE IN THE CAR, OR STOPPING BY A PORN SHOP.

 

If anybody thinks otherwise, they have serious insecurity issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Your address is not private. I can follow anybody home to find where they are living. That's like saying putting government cameras on the streets, or in your car (which I fully support) is an invasion of privacy. The truth of the matter is that PEOPLE CAN SEE YOU WHEN YOU'RE IN THE CAR, OR STOPPING BY A PORN SHOP.

 

If anybody thinks otherwise, they have serious insecurity issues.

Your address is not private, because of phone books and the such, but stalking is illegal. Putting cameras in my car is an invasion of privacy because that's my private property and installing recording devices in such is an invasion of privacy. It doesn't matter if people can see what I'm doing, but having the ability to focus on what I am doing at any time is privacy invasion.

 

On the other hand, cameras in public locations are illegal because anyone else you capture in your camera is an invasion of their privacy. That is ridiculous. In the USA, by law if you are in public areas you are subject to being captured -- which is expected imo. Canada just brought it too far... but I don't think anyone really gives a crap about thus law :P

 

Speaking of privacy, if you really that open about it, you should get this. :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Did you even Read about it?

 

I would be at no liberty to call it "bullcrap" or to e-mail my MP about it if I had not read about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Seriously, I don't see a good reason why anybody would be against it. I'm ALLOWED to rip CDs and DVDs into my other mediums. That's all I need to know.

 

Alex if you think it's bull crap, would you explain to me what impedances the new act would bring to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Seriously, I don't see a good reason why anybody would be against it. I'm ALLOWED to rip CDs and DVDs into my other mediums. That's all I need to know.

 

Alex if you think it's bull crap, would you explain to me what impedances the new act would bring to me?

 

I honestly don't care about the impedances that the new act would bring to you because it's not relevant to me. I care about what is relevant to me and my situation, and currently, the new act brings many impendances that inconvenience myself and bring no benefit to those which my actions may be inconveniencing. Also, from what I've read about it, you're NOT allowed to rip CDs and DVDs that you have legally purchased onto your other mediums. Technically, by what the act states, your number of copies of a particular piece of media = the number of times that you must pay for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I honestly don't care about the impedances that the new act would bring to you because it's not relevant to me. I care about what is relevant to me and my situation, and currently, the new act brings many impendances that inconvenience myself and bring no benefit to those which my actions may be inconveniencing. Also, from what I've read about it, you're NOT allowed to rip CDs and DVDs that you have legally purchased onto your other mediums. Technically, by what the act states, your number of copies of a particular piece of media = the number of times that you must pay for it.

Haha lol I was right, you really never read it.

 

You could copy a legally acquired sound recording to each separate device you own, such as an MP3 player and a computer. Some conditions would apply to the use of this exception. The individual must not have circumvented a technological measure or digital lock to make the copy, for example.

 

As in you cannot circumvent DRM.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So wasn't I right?

Nope...

Also, from what I've read about it, you're NOT allowed to rip CDs and DVDs that you have legally purchased onto your other mediums. Technically, by what the act states, your number of copies of a particular piece of media = the number of times that you must pay for it.
Edited by shc-boomer

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You're not making sense Alex, and you seem hesitant to even describe why the act is so unjustified that you need to send a letter to your MP (I'm totally sure you really did send a letter). It's not as if you illegally acquire copyrighted content right.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Basically, the old "outdated" law didn't allow copying, but no one really cared, the new one did allow a lot more room. Basically in the meantime you are violating both laws whether it changed or not, it's just that the new one was slightly more lax in some regards and less lax on the pirated material producers.

 

Generally speaking, if no one cared before, the new one is the same, they won't go after the downloaders. Check my previous post. Read everything before you jump to conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Basically, the old "outdated" law didn't allow copying, but no one really cared, the new one did allow a lot more room. Basically in the meantime you are violating both laws whether it changed or not, it's just that the new one was slightly more lax in some regards and less lax on the pirated material producers.

 

Generally speaking, if no one cared before, the new one is the same, they won't go after the downloaders. Check my previous post. Read everything before you jump to conclusions.

 

Was that a reply to me, or to Alex? I determined that this law was good for me because it allowed me to pursue with my electronic lifestyle legally. Why Alex is so opposed to this law remains a mystery. If he doesn't want to explain his dissent why proclaim it in the first place?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...