PDA

View Full Version : Proposed Canadian DMCA Act



FuturePilot
June 13th, 2008, 12:11 AM
I just found this in my feed reader
http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/12/1852215&from=rss

Seriously :evil: ](*,)

zmjjmz
June 13th, 2008, 12:14 AM
In the comments, somebody supposedly got a letter from their MP, and from what he said it wasn't anything like the blogger described.
From two biased sides, I cannot say what it's going to be like, but I'm not moving to Canada.

bruce89
June 13th, 2008, 12:20 AM
Next : the UK. Let's hope we get independence first.

original_jamingrit
June 13th, 2008, 03:23 AM
The new copyright bill, Bill C-61, has been released. Long ago dubbed the "Candian DMCA", it has some good provisions, like being able to burn or backup a compact disc, and it's now legal to record VHS tapes or use TiVO (It technically wasn't legal before, though noone cared).

It will A: kill P2P in Canada, (thanks, Bell and Rogers), and B: Make being able to access any DRM protected content illegal using open source software. Plus, there's privacy and other concerns too. We don't have to outright kill the Bill, but if you have any concerns, you ought to voice them to your local member of parliament.

Read more here: http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca/
Find your MP here: http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca/action/firstlook/
Although, don't just send your MP the template, actually write something. It only takes a minute. Show them you're actually concerned. Over 600 people have sent an e-mail through this service, so chances are you MP has received or seen it already.

cardinals_fan
June 13th, 2008, 05:07 AM
I'm American, and I wish I lived in Norway. Norway is awesome.

Mr. Picklesworth
June 13th, 2008, 05:23 AM
Something I haven't quite grasped: What does this do as far as reverse engineering is concerned? For example, if I get a file in a patent-encumbered format where the only program to open it costs a million dollars, am I doomed or can I still use free software which has reverse engineered the file format?

Anyway, I am opposed to this because I know how computer data works. One of the fundamental ideas behind the personal computer is to convert data from one format to another at minimal cost. That is a very beneficial capability. Any industry which does not see this should be considered obsolete, then destroyed at the nearest opportunity.


The system is broken, anyway. Content creators get payed once for their content by distributors. Content distrubutors create entirely unnecessary, superficial packages for said content, charge large fees for it and make a steady revenue. They have to keep charging for that shrink-wrapped content, because it costs them money to manufacture. This wasteful version of the content has no reason to exist and is the reason why we are burrying ourselves in waste. If anything needs to change, it is that.

Yes, it would put thousands of people out of work. They shouldn't have been at work in the first place. They should have known what they were signing up for: An industry built on precarious threads of exploitation. They should have remembered that there is a force called gravity pushing them downwards into reality.

original_jamingrit
June 13th, 2008, 05:45 AM
Something I haven't quite grasped: What does this do as far as reverse engineering is concerned? For example, if I get a file in a patent-encumbered format where the only program to open it costs a million dollars, am I doomed or can I still use free software which has reverse engineered the file format?

Unfortunately, under this new bill this would be illegal, since using a patent encumbered item without the license for it would be considered infringement of academic ownership (another word for intellectual property). It's already technically illegal to even use DVDs in Linux without a license, or without LinDVD http://www.intervideo.com/jsp/Product_Profile.jsp?p=LinDVD (created by Intervideo, which is now owned by Corel). If this Bill is passed as it is, this sort of thing will likely become enforced.

The DRM bit definitely will be enforced, since you would need to install DRM on your linux box in order to access DRM'ed medium. Getting DRM for linux is possible, but I don't think you can download something like Ubuntu and then download a DRM module. It would need to be something that came from a licensed DRM distributor, pre-installed.

Also, be sure to check out the Bill itself, http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=3570473&Mode=1&Language=E

Mr. Picklesworth
June 13th, 2008, 05:50 AM
Something else to mention: We, in free software and creative commons land, are above this. Let's make it known that our free content can be format shifted, copied and modified via permission of its copyright holders. Let's make it known that the only place this law would apply is with content built on short-sighted principles to begin with.

I hope other content producers take the time to more specifically define their terms, as well. The final word does not have to be the copyright law; if the owner says it can be format shifted, it can be format shifted.

Dr. C
June 13th, 2008, 06:01 AM
Some interesting links on the Canadian "DMCA" By the way this bill is actually in many ways far worse than the US DMCA
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=3570473&file=4
http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/06/12/tech-copyright.html
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3025/1/

Some questions are:
Will this bill make it intact through committee?
Will the Conservatives make this a "matter of confidence" and will the Liberals be prepared to bring dowm the government over DRM?
Will the bill just die as the minority government falls for unrelated reasons? This has happened before on Copyright in Canada

Time to contact your MP, party leaders etc to ensure the answers are favorable to freedom and Free Software including GNU / Linux

Quake
June 13th, 2008, 06:02 AM
This government is totally insane! The tories should lose the next election.

One of their surprises is that ... Unlocking your phone will now be ILLEGAL!!

I don't know how's that illegal! It's my phone! I can do with it what I want and if I go to another country, I don't want to end up paying the roaming charges.

zmjjmz
June 13th, 2008, 06:07 AM
I'm quite worried about something like this coming to the US.
And if this gets passed (in the US and Canada), we're going to move to New Zealand.
(Australia spies on us, UK and Canada have the super RIAA control, and the US may just implode anytime soon.)

JohnSearle
June 13th, 2008, 06:08 AM
Letter sent to my MP :)

Let's hope this doesn't go through.

- John

az
June 13th, 2008, 03:46 PM
In the comments, somebody supposedly got a letter from their MP, and from what he said it wasn't anything like the blogger described.
From two biased sides, I cannot say what it's going to be like, but I'm not moving to Canada.

I sent a letter to my MP and I got a response from the two MPs who propsed the bill. This is the email I got:


An Act to Amend the Copyright Act
Thursday, June 12, 2008 1:09 PM
From:
"Ministers Prentice and Verner" <Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca>
Add sender to Contacts
To:
*****
The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age.

What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?

Specifically, it includes measures that would:

* expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the "statutory damages" a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;

* implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy;

* clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and

* provide photographers with the same rights as other creators.

What Bill C-61 does not do:

* it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation

What this Bill is not:

* it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia

Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner.

For more information, please visit the Copyright Reform Process website at www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home

Thank you for sharing your views on this important matter.


The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of Industry

The Honourable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women
and Official Languages and Minister for
La Francophonie



It is completely false; the non-circumvention clause negates all of what they say. The last paragraph about it not being line the US DMCA is also completely stretched - this bill caters to "the industry" and does not empower the artists. It is in-line with the DMCA.

geoken
June 13th, 2008, 04:40 PM
The bill is written in such a deceptive manner. It's the reason people are getting confused (like the poster above). The bill promises x,y and z so it can appear like we're getting something and all the media outlets can talk about the new privelages we have. Then it goes on to say x,y and z can all be overuled at the discretion of the content provider.

In other words, we're allowed to timeshift (note: the law says timeshifted copy must be deleted after it's viewed) but if the cable company puts in some arbitrary DRM to stop time shifting then we loose the right to time shift. Similarly, we are allowed to rip CD's, but if some arbitrary DRM is put on the CD, ripping is illegal no matter how easy it is to break the DRM. Furthemore, any app capable of breaking said DRM and ripping the CD will become illegal. So if Sound Juicer is able to rip a protected CD, Sound Juicer will become illegal.

Also, DeCSS will be illegal so anyone trying to watch DVD's on Linux will be in violation of the law.

Apps which can sync your iPod will also be technically illegal because Apple created a digital lock to only allow iTunes to sync an iPod, and any app which can sync the iPod is breaking this digital lock.

Unlocking phones will also be illegal because you are breaking a digital lock the carrier has put on the phone. Similarly, chipping/hacking consoles (Wii, 360, AppleTV) will also be illegal for the same reasons.

damphoud
June 13th, 2008, 05:03 PM
Have you joined the facebook group?

"Fair Copyright for Canada"

Polygon
June 13th, 2008, 05:45 PM
honestly, will joining a facebook group do anything to voice your opinion about such an issue? not really. Write or phone your Representatives, do something that might have an impact.

geoken
June 13th, 2008, 06:09 PM
honestly, will joining a facebook group do anything to voice your opinion about such an issue? not really. Write or phone your Representatives, do something that might have an impact.

I think everything has an impact. When this issue first came up and the facebook group was started it gained a relatively significant amount of media attention. When the news was saying '25 thousand people have joined a facebook group to voice their discontent' it carried a strong message and made people who had no knowledge of the issue think 'what's all this about'.

It's important to directly contact representatives, but it's equally important (IMO) to make sure attention is brought to the issue and everyone is aware of the dangers (no matter how tech saavy/unsaavy they are). 10k letters may make a statement, but informing 100k and getting them mad enough to send their own letters will make a bigger statement.

az
June 13th, 2008, 06:20 PM
10k letters may make a statement, but informing 100k and getting them mad enough to send their own letters will make a bigger statement.

I used this site to send two (different, updated) letters to my MP:

http://www.copyrightforcanadians.ca/action/firstlook/


I encourage any Canadian who is interested in fair copyright law which protects our rights to use it to send a letter to their MP.

SunnyRabbiera
June 13th, 2008, 06:23 PM
It looks line nobody wants to be friends with linux these days...
There needs to be a revolution, I swear.

original_jamingrit
June 14th, 2008, 02:09 AM
Will the Conservatives make this a "matter of confidence" and will the Liberals be prepared to bring down the government over DRM?

I can't find any proven sources, but my buddy working on Parliament Hill says that the Liberal Party promised to do something about copyright about twelve years ago. A face-off over this isn't likely, unless it's because of an unrelated matter. I don't really think Stephan Dion will start anything. There was almost a confidence vote last week, but Dion wouldn't proceed with it.

PmDematagoda
June 14th, 2008, 03:43 AM
The two threads on this topic have been merged.

zmjjmz
June 14th, 2008, 03:50 AM
There are/were three.

Dr. C
June 20th, 2008, 04:20 AM
Here is an interesting podcast with Minister Prentice on the Canadian DMCA

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/searchengine_20080619_6331.mp3

original_jamingrit
June 20th, 2008, 04:53 AM
Here is an interesting podcast with Minister Prentice on the Canadian DMCA

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/searchengine_20080619_6331.mp3

Argh. That last unanswered question was the one I most wanted a answer to. But, thank you for posting this. I wasn't sure before, but now it sounds pretty likely that Jim Prentice doesn't have the greatest grasp on the technology involved here.

The Digital Locks thing is what bugs me the most. They haven't really made any attempt to clarify what constitutes a digital lock.

zmjjmz
June 20th, 2008, 02:38 PM
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080616
and
http://ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080617

William Dojinn
June 20th, 2008, 03:41 PM
Pithetic...absolutely pithetic. I always knew media (riaa mpaa, etc) held sway in us jurisdictions, but I hadn't really realized they cared enough about canada to enact DMCA 2.0