Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Canadian DMCA Proposal About To Die

Soulskill posted more than 5 years ago | from the aboot-time dept.

Government 186

An anonymous reader writes "Like the previous Bill C-60 before it, the proposed Bill C-61 that would bring DMCA-like laws to Canada is poised to die on the order table, never to receive a vote, as the current minority government falls. An election call is expected in days. Everybody expects that some form of these laws will be back yet again (third time's a charm?). There are too many interests pushing for change to let it go. But here's a chance for Canadians to influence politicians about it in an election campaign, and hopefully strike a better balance. And for those of you in the rest of the world who are laboring under a DMCA-like copyright law, let's hear your stories about why such laws are a good or bad idea, and if bad, how you would amend the law to make it tolerable. With the polls probably on Oct. 14th, Canadians will be looking for a few good ideas."

cancel ×

186 comments

So now we... (0, Flamebait)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897737)

PRAISE CANADA!

Re:So now we... (3, Insightful)

Cathoderoytube (1088737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898047)

For what exactly? That our political system is setup in such a way that proposed bills get turfed if they're introduced too close to an election? There've been many good bills that have met the same fate because of elections.

Re:So now we... (5, Insightful)

LaskoVortex (1153471) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898073)

our political system is setup in such a way that proposed bills get turfed if they're introduced too close to an election? There've been many good bills that have met the same fate because of elections.

Better ten good laws get turfed than one bad one get passed.

Re:So now we... (1)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898595)

What if one of those good laws is a law against bad laws?...huh?... HUH?...yeah...thought so...lol

Re:So now we... (1)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899053)

You had a valid point until you put "lol" at the end... fail!

Re:So now we... (3, Funny)

kohaku (797652) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899365)

You had a valid point until you put "lol" at the end... fail!

You had a valid point until you put "fail" at the end... lol!

Re:So now we... (1)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899413)

Epistemological Breakout Ball Bouncing against, upon, on, and over Bricks ... Too Fast To Handle Through :P

Please Insert Another Post.

Re:So now we... (1)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899059)

What if nobody gives a shit? Then what? The RIAA will *still* lose. WTF do I care if they only have to pay me $200M instead of $800M, in one particular case? They're still BANKRUPT in The End. Does it really matter all that much if I piss on their heads at a 70 degree angle versus a 33 degree angle?

Re:So now we... (4, Funny)

Deus.1.01 (946808) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898145)

If i took time to study the issue i might have lost first post.

Re:So now we... (1)

Z00L00K (682162) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898197)

"Here comes the tax return..." ;-)

But in reality, it seems that the only ones really pushing for the more extreme copyright acts are the *AA:s and this means that they want to be in control of our lives and what we see and hear.

Re:So now we... (1)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899111)

The "**AAs"? Fuck the MAFIAA. Fuck the RIAA. They lost. It's over. Eliot Spitzer. John Edwards. Valerie (or is it Sarah?) Plain. There's plenty more from where that came from. X-Treme Copyright Acts are good for us! Let the big dummies walk the plank whilst threatened with a middle finger.

Legends (5, Funny)

magus_melchior (262681) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897755)

Okay, did anyone else read the title and think "Gauntlet"?

"Canadian DMCA... needs food!"
"Canadian DMCA... needs food, badly!"
"Canadian DMCA... your life force is running out!"

Re:Legends (4, Funny)

c6gunner (950153) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898019)

For some reason that reminds me of this comic [vgcats.com] .

And the author's Canadian! Perfect!

Re:Legends (1)

richlv (778496) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899855)

actually, i read it at first as "Canadian DMCA Proposal Author About To Die".

disturbing.

Blame Canada, Blame Canada, .... (4, Funny)

LM741N (258038) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897781)

For making my record industry stocks plummet. Now I will end up having to live in low income housing, and download my music for free.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, .... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24897921)

Its funny, but theres more people living in the state of California than there is in Canada. The Idea that Canadian file sharing could possibly be doing that much harm to the record industry is laughable.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, .... (2, Insightful)

Vectronic (1221470) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898659)

Not that im for laws against file sharing, but if Canada had no restrictions on file sharing, then I'd imagine there would be a lot of Canadian rippers, and the USians could download from them, which would contrast with the US laws, and then either force Canada back into laws against it, or restrict the transfers between Canada and the US, since corporately many reside in/on both countries, unlike most central European, south American, or African places, etc.

Alternatively though, it may just force the corporations out of Canada (no distribution, or artist farming) which could easily be argued would be a good thing.

The same goes for a single state within the US, it poses a threat that the industry can't let pass, what if it becomes a trend? OMGz! And I think thats mostly what they are scared of, regardless of population, any leeway is "bad" (according to them).

Disclaimer: I'm Canadian, and I just woke up... so if this sounds like nonsense, it just might be.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, .... (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24899147)

Orignal AC here;

Thing is we do have laws that cover file sharing, Our existing copyright laws already make distribution illegal (assuming your not authorized to of course). The problem US corporations have is that the Canadian system is substantially different from the US one in several ways.

The most prominent of these would be our Blank Media Levy, A portion of every sale on blank media like CD-R's is payed to the CRIA (our local version of the RIAA) This levy is widely held to cover any possible losses that companies might suffer from copying. This means as Canadians our fair use rights are a bit more ironclad, we are quite literally paying for them. Because of this blank media levy it's actually not even certain if pirating music is illegal or not, as we have in effect already paid for it (This has NOT been decided in court yet one way or another)

The next important difference is that we don't have a a DMCA like peice of legislation, meaning cracking DRM in Canada is also still in Legal Limbo, with no law saying its illegal to unlock your software the courts would tend to fall back on existing laws, and the logic of "You bought it its yours to do with as you please provided your not in violation of any laws" is pretty easy to follow. The aforementioned Blank Media Levy also makes format/time shifting a no brainier too, why pay a surcharge to a music industry on a product if you can't copy your music to it? So in Canada DRM is even more pointless as theres no law protecting it, which means companies can't try to lock you in to a certain product/vendor through tie ins and judicious use of DRM. And groups like the RIAA are pretty stupid about DRM they still think its going to be their saviour, and thanks to the DMCA in the US its almost working.

Finally, and in a more general way, Canadian consumer protection laws are more strict (that is to say in favor of the customer) than in the USA, may corporate practises that work in the USA don't work here. Most notably EULA's are not enforceable under Canadian law.

These factors are the death knell for the tactics that the BSA and RIAA and their ilk have been using in the states, and as the people trying desperately to hold onto an outdated business model thats bad (for them). A DMCA ish piece of legislation is nothing more than an industry trying to legislate it self a larger profit margin and we as Canadians neither need nor want it.

Again in case I wasen't clear Canada has copyright laws, and they cover fileshareing. What we don't have are the broken lobbyist bought laws that the USA suffers under, and we sure as fuck don't want em. And as a taxpaying citizen I think my government has spent enough of its time and my money on the issue. The recording industry continues to post record breaking multi-billion dollar profits, clearly they are not going under, time to focus our time and energy on more pressing concerns like oh say insuring we have enough energy to power the country in 5 years (we're a power hungry country, we need more damn power plants) or what we're going to do about a primary energy source other than oil. And of immediate concern is that the collapsing US dollar is basically killing our manufacturing industry, and were not just talking a few layoffs here, entire plants are closing down. American companies just can't afford to buy as much of our crap anymore between the sky high price of gas and a dollar at near parity.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, .... (1)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899227)

Hi Original AC. Come videotape me Live downloading anything and everything, itching for free sacrificial RIAA money. These bastard are at the ready to rip off every word I might utter. Of course I'm marked and can't upload anything for the moment. I Won precisely because of absurd copyright laws. Pass some more! Give me more free money from the music industry coffers! Every single upload and every single download by any and all bloody RIAA pirate representatives has been and forever will be recorded to perfection.

"Some of you are thinking that you won't fight. Some of you that you can't. They all say that."

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, .... (1)

LM741N (258038) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899561)

Actually I care more about those great BC seeds and "stuff" that comes over the border (here in OR). After a bit of that, I don't need to download anything- the music comes right out of my head.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, .... (2, Interesting)

MobyDisk (75490) | more than 5 years ago | (#24900323)

There is one good part of the DMCA: The Safe Harbor stuff that makes ISPs not liable for content their users upload. Now, it just plain seems obvious to me that ISPs aren't responsible for policing their users, so I'm not sure if a law stating that is really necessary. But what is obvious and common sense isn't always what the law interprets. So it might be a good thing to have.

Re:Blame Canada, Blame Canada, .... (1)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899157)

if Canada had no restrictions on file sharing, then I'd imagine there would be a lot of Canadian rippers, and the USians could download from them

Uhh, no, I mean, Yes. Infantry. Cavalry. General and Officers. Let Canada absorb the influx of illegal USA-ian laws school graduates.

Hehe. "A 'Threat'". Maybe in a land and a time far far ago. We can download anything and everything whenever we wish, to check to make sure that none of our own IPs are being violated as per established by the representatives of the RIAA methodology. Don't forget to /salute the Uploading Special Forces, Pirate Bastards! :P

Viva minority governments (5, Insightful)

francisstp (1137345) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897805)

Had the Conservatives been governing under a majority government, this bill would have passed long ago (plus we'd be even more involved militarily). Let's hope the situation stays identical for a long time.

Re:Viva minority governments (2, Insightful)

fyoder (857358) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897853)

Let's hope the situation stays identical for a long time.

No, lets hope the NDP form a majority government.

Ah ha ha ha, kidding, I know that some things just aren't possible, esp. when people who might have voted NDP vote Liberal because they're justifiably frightened of Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.

Re:Viva minority governments (5, Insightful)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897935)

I know that some things just aren't possible, esp. when people who might have voted NDP vote Liberal because they're justifiably frightened of Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.

I've taken a hard stance that I like to talk about: I have sworn to myself that I won't fall for fearmongering any more. I now vote only for the party that I actually want to be in power, consequences be damned. I've convinced myself that our form of democracy just doesn't work if you don't vote for who you actually support. And I've been ranting to anyone who will listen: The Liberals aren't *that* much different from the Conservatives. So if, by some amazing chance, my (or your) vote for the NDP or Greens (or the Bloc if you're into that kind of thing :) ) could have been the deciding vote between the Libs and Cons, the situation is still largely the same. Especially if it's a minority.

But, it's hard convincing people. Even people who like the NDP. Even after I let them know that each vote means more funding for that party, so it isn't just a "wasted vote". Even after convincing them that the Libs wouldn't even have this "green shift" platform if it wasn't for the recent upswing in the Greens' numbers. Even after I show them Tommy Douglass' Mousland speech [youtube.com] . Sigh.

Re:Viva minority governments (5, Interesting)

Bieeanda (961632) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898027)

I've taken a hard stance that I like to talk about: I have sworn to myself that I won't fall for fearmongering any more. I now vote only for the party that I actually want to be in power, consequences be damned. I've convinced myself that our form of democracy just doesn't work if you don't vote for who you actually support.

Precisely. That's why we have the concepts of majority, minority and coalition governments. I prefer minority governments for exactly the outcome we have here-- Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition actually has the chance to keep shit like this from steamrolling through, when the ruling party doesn't have enough seats to overwhelm the opposing vote.

Re:Viva minority governments (4, Interesting)

innocent_white_lamb (151825) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898765)

I like to think that I'm a reasonably well-informed and educated person. I take an interest, greater or lesser, in a great many things, including politics and the world around us.

I have, in several elections, gone to the polling station, taken my ballot to the little booth and after unfolding it, I re-fold it and return it to the clerk for her to put into the ballot box. I vote, but I make no mark on the ballot at all if, in my opinion, no candidate is worthy of receiving my vote.

And I am Canadian.

Re:Viva minority governments (3, Insightful)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898953)

On the same note, I would really love to see a system where empty ballots are counted as such — and where a number of empty ballots could get an empty seat in the parliament.
It is unlikely the empty ballots would ever reach a majority, but even a few empty seats would show most vividly that some people are not at all represented, and remind the politicians that not everyone supports them. You need a majority for something? Well, the empty seats are against it; deal with it.

It might not change much, but at least the current abstainees would now have a reason to vote, even if it is for no-one.

Re:Viva minority governments (0, Flamebait)

Brickwall (985910) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899715)

Both of you are typical Canadians - whining brats who don't even bother to find out how our system of government works. You can DECLINE your ballot - that is, when the clerk hands you the ballot, you tell him/her you decline it. THESE HAVE TO BE RECORDED AS DECLINED - not spoiled, not blank, and not that you didn't even bother to show up.

And this is not a new law; it's been that way for over a hundred years. Canadians are so used to looking down their noses at "ignorant" Americans, but at least every American I've met has some idea of how their system of government works, unlike you snot-nosed clowns who clearly don't know a goddam thing.

Re:Viva minority governments (3, Interesting)

cp.tar (871488) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899767)

First of all, I am not a Canadian. Nor am I an American.
In fact, I am not even a native English speaker.

Furthermore, a declined or an invalid ballot is subsequently ignored. If 10% of the population cast such ballots, they will not get 10% of empty seats to represent them. So please do not flame me.

Re:Viva minority governments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24900349)

If you reprimand everyone in power equally, you'll find nobody gets punished... And no change will be made. That you expect politicians to stop being petty, narrow-minded, short-term myopic politicians from just voting is just not realistic. Especially without massive protests and the fear from those politicians that you're convinced that the ballot box has failed and are considering the ammo box.

Re:Viva minority governments (2, Interesting)

eikonos (779343) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899061)

I like you're idea of voting for the party you actually support. I actually did last time around, but I'm worried about the Conservatives getting back in, so I'm not sure this time. If you're in BC, vote for STV next year: http://stvforbc.com/ [stvforbc.com]

Re:Viva minority governments (1)

msim (220489) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899489)

Just remember. No matter who you vote for, a politician still gets in.

Re:Viva minority governments (2, Insightful)

Curtman (556920) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899491)

I now vote only for the party that I actually want to be in power, consequences be damned.

That might work if the politicians were limited in the scope of bills they could introduce by what they promised to do during the election. Did I have any idea that Steven Harper would run all over the world shouting about how great and wonderful Israel is, and how we'll support them no matter what crimes they commit? I don't even remember it being an election issue. I don't remember people asking him to bring us a DMCA either. Did he mention that he would throw billions of dollars away that were stolen from us in the softwood lumber dispute?

They lie. We can expect these guys to behave the way they always have. Whatever they say during the election isn't the problem. It's what they don't say, but intend to do if they get a majority that frightens me.

Re:Viva minority governments (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24899951)

Here's the thing: barring a miracle, the NDP isn't going to win, the Green party sure isn't, and the Bloc will win only in Quebec. In which likely minority government do you think the NDP, Green (heck, and even Bloc) MPs are more likely to have an effective voice:

A) the Conservatives
B) the Liberals

Think carefully.

Then think about the same thing if enough votes go to the NDP and other parties that the Liberals do especially poorly and the Conservatives get a majority government instead (a majority for the Liberals looks out of reach).

I like having choices, and the NDP isn't a bad choice, but for this election I think the Liberals need a little help to to ensure a Conservative majority government doesn't happen. I LIKE the minority government situation. All the opposition parties have influence. Even a single Green MP is going to have more influence in a minority government (of any kind) than a majority. It's the main reason why, for two successive governments, DMCA-like legislation hasn't been rammed through. We wouldn't even be having this discussion if it were a majority government.

So, my vote is for whatever I think it will take to force a minority government, and in this election I think that means Liberal. But I'll want to talk to all the local candidates before deciding, because the local factor can override any national party concerns, and I'll certainly want to know each of their opinions of bill C-61.

Re:Viva minority governments (3, Funny)

rbergstrom (819587) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898099)

frightened of Harper and his Reform/Alliance/Conservative Party.

But the "Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance Party" had such an appropriate acronym.

Wha Wha What? (1)

NetNed (955141) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897829)

Good ideas? We're talking about DMCA right? Isn't DMCA and good idea like a oxymoron?

If you like having media corporations run free over any ounce of rights you have with laws that encourage them doing so, then there is your good idea!

Re:Wha Wha What? (1)

NetNed (955141) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897857)

Oh yea, 18 dollar music CD's that where 5 dollars two years ago, but that's more the RIAA. Still the RIAA is one of the forces that tries hardest to subvert and twist DMCA law to their own liking, which is reason enough not to like either!

As a previously loyal conservative voter (4, Interesting)

ameline (771895) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897831)

As a previously loyal conservative voter, I cannot vote for the conservatives this time largely due to C61. I have been thrust, unwillingly, into the arms of the NDP as they are the only one of the three major parties in Canada with a rational position on the subject. This bill proposes to make a criminal of me and virtually everyone I know.

I will be donating money and volunteering my time to ensure that the conservatives do not attain a majority.

That and Harper and Prentice are both industrial strength douchebags. Both of them can go straight to hell as far as I am concerned.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24897859)

I'll be joining you, friend. How ironic that the party most often associated with "socialism" is the only one that clearly sees the harm TO INDIVIDUALS of these types of laws.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter (2, Funny)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899281)

Yes, thank you libertarian philosophy, thank you free market austrian economic analysis methodology. This isn't, never has been, and won't ever be, about "left" versus "right". This is an extremist left-right strange bedfellows unholy alliance timeout, to make the world a better place, by abolishing IP as a warmup to the task of eliminating government banker bunker fiat currency; then we can go back to our usual petty grievances.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter (4, Informative)

sayfawa (1099071) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897955)

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24898457)

No, they're also about market self-regulation, and let's not forget that the NDP's environmental stance is actually 'greener' than the Green party's. Also, don't confuse Canada's Green Party with more successful parties by the same name in europe

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter (4, Interesting)

tonywong (96839) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898327)

I'd moderate you up, but I have more to say.

Just remember that this is the Conservative Party is the one that is modeled after the Republican Party in the United States. Not all of the the philosophies, but in operation. The have been in constant election mode and that means that they put their partisanship before any real governance.

This includes things like Bill C-61. If you are a Canadian and you are reading this site you should know what and how Bill C-61 is and how it can affect you. It is dead simply because of a quirk in politics, not because it died in any readings. The Conservatives can and will reintroduce a third bill like C-61 simply because they can. They are in line with 'big business' and lobbyists at the expense of your average Canadian. If you allow the Conservatives to gain a majority then they will ram a successor to C-61 down you throats and you have NO ONE but yourselves to blame in allowing this to happen.

Just remember that this is the governing party that has allowed an innocent man (Maher Arar) to be renditioned and tortured in Syria via the United States on poor and mistaken evidence that he was a terrorist, and then tried to cover it up by denying any fault. What makes you think that a government that would allow this would give any consideration to average Canadians about criminalizing downloads?

You have a little more than 30 days to get the word out that the Conservative Party is not out for any citizen's interests but is totally willing to follow the will of corporate interests, the largest of which are headquartered in the United States. Funny how Bill C-61 looked like the DMCA...

Harper doesn't just ignore fixed election dates... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24899649)

He ignores his own Supreme Court selection process:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20080905.wscoc0905/BNStory/National/home

Re:Harper doesn't just ignore fixed election dates (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 5 years ago | (#24900041)

To be fair (and I'm not saying I agree with his selection process - I don't), the committee couldn't make a choice because the opposition members on it didn't show up, and quorum couldn't be reached. You can't blame Harper for that (but you can congratulate those MPs).

Re:Harper doesn't just ignore fixed election dates (1)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 5 years ago | (#24900457)

By law he is allowed to do it. He was just trying to reform the system with out all the hastle of getting a new bill passed. It is the oposition that appeared not want to change the statis quo. Since they never showed up to participate in the selection process.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter (1)

Brickwall (985910) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899901)

Right. Canadian election finance laws do not allow for contributions from big business any longer, which is one reason the Liberals - who were the party of big business, just look at contributions before Chretien changed the law - are broke. The Tories raise all their money - lots of it - from individual Canadians, with the average contribution being, IIRC, $75. But you keep believing that the Tories are mean and in the pockets of business, and keep forgetting that the Liberals stole your tax dollars to pay their campaign expenses and still haven't paid it back.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter (2, Informative)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 5 years ago | (#24900063)

I agree with most of what you said, but would add this: if anyone is interested in what's wrong with C61, check out Michael Geist's blog [michaelgeist.ca] where he's running "61 Reforms to C61". It's scary as hell, C61 is MUCH worse than the DMCA.

And two, although Harper's government is complicit in the rendition of Maher Arar, Arar was actually rendered to Syria on Paul Martin's watch.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter (3, Informative)

rruvin (583160) | more than 5 years ago | (#24900403)

Just remember that this is the governing party that has allowed an innocent man (Maher Arar) to be renditioned and tortured in Syria via the United States on poor and mistaken evidence that he was a terrorist

No, that happened in 2002, three and a half years before the Conservatives came to power. The party in power back then was the Liberals.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899169)

As a previously loyal conservative voter, I cannot vote for the conservatives this time largely due to C61.

I see your problem. If they made it C90 then maybe that would seem better voter value than a C61, I mean, you can get 45 minutes per side from a C90!

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter (0, Flamebait)

TheVelvetFlamebait (986083) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899261)

*sigh*

This bill proposes to make a criminal of me and virtually everyone I know.

It doesn't want to make you a criminal. No-one wants to make you a criminal. They want to make piracy a criminal activity, and they hope you won't become a criminal.

Piracy robs artists of their legally granted rights. Why shouldn't it be a (white collar) crime? The worst that'll happen is the burden of finding and prosecuting offenders, which the record/movie industry has devastatingly mishandled, will fall to the government, who at least you can elect.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter (1)

ameline (771895) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899905)

I'm not sure if you're a troll, or just uninformed, so here goes;

I format shift my dvds to my entertainment center computer -- I don't give copies out to anyone -- but this simple act of format shifting dvds is criminalized under this bill (as dvds have copy protection that must be circumvented in order to format shift them). If it passes I will be a criminal -- as will almost everyone I know. Hence my vehement opposition.

Re:As a previously loyal conservative voter (1)

Xelios (822510) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899709)

The worst part about this is the bill can be voted down over and over, and they'll just reintroduce it, over and over. It only has to pass once, and that's the depressing part.

But at least for now, Mr. Stephen Harper; we're setting you adrift, idiot. [youtube.com]

Make it tolerable? (4, Interesting)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897835)

Make it tolerable ... By rejecting it and rolling back copyrights to their original limited lifespan of 14 years after registration. (Although I don't mind the automatic copyright granted which should last for no more than one year pending registration, nor the application/grant of one extension for another 14 years)

Oh, and I would increase registration requirements and a provision to provide library copies with actual submissions in open source storage formats completely free of DRM.

IOW, the only tolerable DMCA is a dead DMCA.

Re:Make it tolerable? (-1, Flamebait)

hellwig (1325869) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898085)

You sir, have obviously never created anything of value. Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee? What is this assinine belief people have that everything should be open and free. You know what, if you don't like copyright, don't purchase copyrighted material. Just cause you're selfish and have no concept of the hard-work and effort people put into these products, and therefore don't understand the value of copyright law, doesn't mean copyright law is wrong.

Do I think the DMCA is broken? Yes. Do I think we should revert copyright law back 200 years? Hell no. I think that if an artist creates a brilliant work of art, and wants to live off the royalties of that work for the rest of their life, they should have that right. They shouldn't be denied the benefits of their hard work and creativety just cause some talentless moron doesn't like the fact that they can't download music for free or because that old video game they liked to play was abandoned. Unlike patents, copyright covers ephemeral works that don't sway the course of human evolution directly (yes, powerful art can impress, but not alter). Therefore, a company should only get to keep a life-saving drug to themselves for so long, before it's in the best interest of mankind that the drug be distributed en-masse. However, I don't think the world is hurting any just cause you can't download your favorite episode of The Office off YouTube.

Besides, the 200 year old law you quote was mainly used to protect the massive investments made by charting companies in the creation of maps and other charts. Remember, that original copyright law was enacted in the face of no copyright law, and only extended to books, maps, and charts. How good is a 15 year old map anyway? It will have none of the modern roads or provincial bodies, thus even the companies creating them acknowledged no need to protect them after a certain point. 15-year old movies, though, can still generate revenue. Revenue off protected works surely reduces with time, but it's not your money so why should you get to decide when it's no longer worth it to the original creator? I'm sure lots of washed-up celebs still live off royalties from shows they did decades ago, even if they get a whopping 15 cents every time it airs. Who are you to tell that person that they don't deserve that money just cause you feel like downloading an episode off of YouTube?

Revert the DMCA. Limit copyright to the lifetime of the individual creator, or to a reasonable period for companies. Restrict copyright to actual works (Mickey Mouse is trademarked and protected, but Walt Disney is dead, and "Steamboat Willy" should be open domain). I'm sorry that you, and I, and most of us will work 9-5 till we die, that doesn't mean a (arguably) creative genious like JK Rowling should have to start worrying about Sorceror's Stone knockoffs anytime soon.

Re:Make it tolerable? (4, Insightful)

mellon (7048) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898201)

Of course, the problem isn't people who want to live off their works for the rest of their lives. It's people who want those works to remain under copyright protection for half a century or more after the author has died. And it's all of the works that nobody is making any money on anymore, but that nevertheless are lost to the world because, since they are under copyright, and the owners of the copyright can't be located, the works can't be digitized.

Re:Make it tolerable? (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24898247)

>Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee?

Actually, as an Electrician, I create a lot of hard work. I was paid for it by the factory I worked at. I've left that line of work now. Do I feel the factory owes me anything at all?

No.

Why do artists feel they are owed money for a lifetime and a half (Canada's current laws give 50 years AFTER DEATH copyright terms) for any work they do? Whether it takes 5 minutes or 5 years? They're worse than today's university grads that feel toiling in a university for 3 years _entitles_ them to a $80k+ a year job FOR LIFE.

Fuck that self-entitlement shit right up the ass. If you don't like it, don't create any more art. I really don't care if there's no more art in the world if the only way it can be created is is if artists feel they deserve to be paid for it 50 years after they're dead and buried. Nobody deserves treatment like that, not even Jesus for God's sakes.

>I think that if an artist creates a brilliant work of art, and wants to live off the royalties of that work for the rest of their life, they should have that right.

I created plenty of brilliant works as an Electrician, and even if I was the only one who could do the job I did (hint: artists are JUST AS REPLACEABLE, trust me -- there might be only one van gogh and only one mozart, but the world didn't stop turning because they didn't get 100+ year copyrights) I *never* felt entitled to live off that job for the rest of my life, just watching profits roll in, not doing jack shit to continue to justify them.

I think we need to go back to the old system of Kings and Queens paying artists to create art for them so artists can be taken off that high pedestal they think they deserve. Put them in a real job for five minutes and they'll start crying. Well, they say crying is the first step to healing!

>How good is a 15 year old map anyway? It will have none of the modern roads or provincial bodies, thus even the companies creating them acknowledged no need to protect them after a certain point.

Actually, I've used plenty of 15 year old provincial maps (thanks province of Ontario, too bad they're no longer free!) and they are just fine. Very few roads disappear, except for the occasional local route.

>I'm sure lots of washed-up celebs still live off royalties from shows they did decades ago, even if they get a whopping 15 cents every time it airs. Who are you to tell that person that they don't deserve that money just cause you feel like downloading an episode off of YouTube?

You *have* to be shitting me, right? There's plenty of washed up, drunk, useless Electricians out there too. And if they don't get their arse up each and every morning they can't afford anything but moonshine. Do you shed a tear for them? Fucking elitist.

>Limit copyright to the lifetime of the individual creator, or to a reasonable period for companies.

Abolish copyright entirely. Stop letting artists be elitist pricks. It's about friggin' time.

>I'm sorry that you, and I, and most of us will work 9-5 till we die, that doesn't mean a (arguably) creative genious like JK Rowling should have to start worrying about Sorceror's Stone knockoffs anytime soon.

You have to be fucking kidding me. Because someone can operate a typewriter and put pablum on a page they deserve a lifetime of luxury?

>Just cause you're selfish and have no concept of the hard-work and effort people put into these products, and therefore don't understand the value of copyright law, doesn't mean copyright law is wrong.

*I'M SELFISH?* WTF?!?! I'm selfish because I expect perfectly capable people to work 40 hours a week? That I don't think someone who writes a book one time has the right to live off it for the rest of their life? That they society shouldn't tell them "enough is enough" and remind them, yes, you really do need to work for a living? Well, fuck you very much.

28 years is more than plenty. 14 years is absolutely plenty. And if you're making money hand over fist, like JK Rowling, you need to be paying taxes hand over fist, like everyone else. Lifetime copyright plus 50 years should come at a cost: A lifetime of taxes, plus 50 years. The estate of anyone who holds copyright should be taxed upon their death, so they government can collect 50 years of taxes. It's only fair! Anything else is... gosh! SELFISH!

BTW: Regarding knockoffs: Us Electricians have to worry about knockoffs all the time. That is, unlicensed people doing electrical work. And you know what? Those of us who AREN'T total assholes don't complain that *YOU* want to work *UNLICENSED* on your *OWN* home. But, I suppose we should outlaw that, because, hey, it interferes with our RIGHT TO MAKE MONEY (Can someone tell me where in the charter that right is? I need to Make Money Fast too!).

Christ, people like you just make me hate artists. After this, fuck it, I think I'll spend the rest of the week wiring up houses rather than watching movies or anything else, just because artists are assholes.

Re:Make it tolerable? (4, Insightful)

ppanon (16583) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898549)

Eh don't hate artists because of him. Apart for some egotists like the guy from Metallica, artists generally want their art to be experienced and appreciated by as many people as possible and are happy to just make a healthy living at it (i.e put food on the table and a roof over their head). The GP is probably a shill for either the RIAA, MPAA, GOP, or CPoC (Conservative Party of Canada) trying to astroturf to support the party line.

Most artists are OK, It's the bottom feeders that rip everyone off by creating artificial scarcity that you need to be angry with.

Re:Make it tolerable? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24899875)

Why do artists feel they are owed money for a lifetime and a half

This isn't about the artists, who are usually screwed over in the deals(big time [salon.com] ). It's about the recording industries milking them and their fans for all they're worth, even after they're dead and buried.

Re:Make it tolerable? (5, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898531)

You sir, have obviously never created anything of value. Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee?

And you, sir, have evidently never invented anything useful.

I have 12 granted US Patents [all involve apparatus, none are for software or business methods], and a couple of pending applications. Some of these patents are actively exploited in products on the market, and I receive modest remuneration as a result. Of course, you are free to exploit any patented invention for your own use, provided it is not used commercially - royalties are only needed for commercial use.

Not only do you have to pay "non-trivial" filing, inspection, and [perhaps] grant fees to the US PTO, you must pay increasing renewal fees every four years to maintain a granted patent. You must also submit a locally adapted translated application and pay (usually even higher) fees in every other jurisdiction where you want your invention to be protected.

At most after 20 years from the first filing, the patent expires. None of mine have expired yet, but it won't be too long before the first one does. In fact, all of my existing patents will have expired before I retire. They are not "money for your life and your descendents' lives", even if they are used commercially for decades.

Revert the DMCA. Limit copyright to the lifetime of the individual creator, or to a reasonable period for companies. Restrict copyright to actual works (Mickey Mouse is trademarked and protected, but Walt Disney is dead, and "Steamboat Willy" should be open domain). I'm sorry that you, and I, and most of us will work 9-5 till we die, that doesn't mean a (arguably) creative genious like JK Rowling should have to start worrying about Sorceror's Stone knockoffs anytime soon.

Now, which benefits society more in the long term - a useful invention (on which further inventions may be built) or a recording of Prince or Madonna squawking?

If it's not exploited, a patent is often allowed to lapse after only 8 or 12 years (non-payment of maintenance fees). It expires after at most 20 years, no matter what.

I see no reason why copyrights should automatically be worldwide (patents are national), or last much longer than a patent. Even the lifetime of the author is the wrong term for copyright (author might be creative at 90 years old, or die in an accident, etc.), and would be inapplicable to corporations. A fixed maximum term of 20 years would be reasonable.

If a longer copyright term (such as 50 years) were adopted, then there should be an early expiry mechanism for copyright. For example, if a work has been in copyright for more than 12 years, then if 4 years pass without the work or a direct derivative being distributed, then it would lapse into the public domain. Note that works under GPL would not be weakened by this requirement, since they are being frequently distributed.

Re:Make it tolerable? (5, Insightful)

rohan972 (880586) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898625)

Why else would you think one individuals hard work belongs to you after 14 years or failure to register with a centralized body for a non-trivial fee? ... Just cause you're selfish and have no concept of the hard-work and effort people put into these products, and therefore don't understand the value of copyright law, doesn't mean copyright law is wrong.

We as a society, sir, never have rewarded people on the basis hard work and effort, nor is there ever any intention to do so. We reward people for supplying a saleable product or service for which there is a demand. The extent of the reward is determined by supply and demand.

Consider this example: a man moves a pile of rocks, then moves it back, every day for a year. No-one asked him to, he has no contract promising payment for moving the rocks. Do we reward him on the basis of his hard work? He has worked extremely hard! No, we don't reward him. If he had a lifelong dream to move rocks, he has fulfilled his dream, he's a success! If he did it in the expectation that someone should reward him, he's just a fool.

Nobody cares how hard the "individual creator" works, that's their problem. Introduce laws to reward hard work and you'll get a whole bunch of people doing "busy work" that's totally unproductive and undesirable and drains the economy. It'd be like having another government.

Here's the issue: copying is a natural right. It is the basis of all learning. We copy to learn to walk, we copy to learn to talk, we copy to learn to write, there is no endeavour you can embark on that does not depend on you first doing a massive amount of copying. Even our very life comes about from the copying of DNA, it is fundamental to our existence. Therefore, it is the obligation of the copyright proponents to justify their demand that people refrain from their natural right, not the obligation of the people to justify copying.

Well, here is the justification:
Without copyright (and with the existence of the internet) an unregulated free market operating solely on supply and demand does not facilitate the production of works as abundantly as we would like. The reason is that due to the infinitely copyable nature of the works, there are two extremes of supply only, (1) zero supply (or potential supply) for works not yet created and (2) unlimited supply for works that have been created. In the case of (1) the price for the production of one copy needed to provide incentive for the creator is too high for most potential buyers, greatly decreasing demand and therefore decreasing production of works. In the case of (2) the unlimited supply drops the price to near zero, greatly decreasing the incentive to supply and therefore decreasing production of works. But we want the works to be produced, so we can use (including copy) them.

The solution society (in the USA) came up with: we will temporarily forsake our natural right to copy, artificially creating a third intermediate phase in the supply of infinitely copyable works. (1a) temporary period in which the work has already been created, stimulating demand, but supply is limited, increasing the price and providing incentive for the creator. It is important to remember that the whole purpose for agreeing to this artificial limitation of supply is to achieve an abundance of infinitely copyable and usable works. So copyright is a social contract. You can find the terms of that contract in the US constitution: "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts, by securing for limited Times to Authors and Inventors the exclusive Right to their respective Writings and Discoveries"

So, you can see that "limited time" is a key part of the social contract. The agreement isn't "You produce works for us to buy, and we'll pay for them forever" it is "We'll temporarily refrain from copying so you can sell your work, you deliver that work to the public domain". Saying to me "Don't copy this work for now, your great great grandchildren can copy it" doesn't cut it as a limited time. Corrupt agreements between corporations and the government to plunder the public domain do not produce a moral obligation on the people to honor a contract that has long been broken by the "content producers".

How good is a 15 year old map anyway?

When you're talking about shipping charts etc of that time, of areas that had never been charted, they are as useful as the day they were made. Geography changes slowly.

15-year old movies, though, can still generate revenue.

If you allowed a patent on the wheel, it could still generate revenue. That doesn't make it a good idea.

Therefore, a company should only get to keep a life-saving drug to themselves for so long, before it's in the best interest of mankind that the drug be distributed en-masse. However, I don't think the world is hurting any just cause you can't download your favorite episode of The Office off YouTube.

So something of great value and importance should have less protection that something trivial? If the video is so lacking in value to society, why give it copyright protection at all?

Re:Make it tolerable? (2, Insightful)

ozbird (127571) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898697)

I think that if an artist creates a brilliant work of art, and wants to live off the royalties of that work for the rest of their life, they should have that right.

Real artists should be able to produce at least one brilliant work of art, or several acceptable ones, every 14 years.

Re:Make it tolerable? (1)

monxrtr (1105563) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899379)

Feel free to duplicate copy any and all of my and anyone else's material possessions, at your leisure, you creative, too stupid to accomplish it, retard. I and they absolve you and they of your and their miracle pretensions. More than one farmer grows corn, more than one woman gives birth, more than one is two is some kind of mathematically defined set. I might be late today. I can be on time tomorrow, but you'll 4-ever be stupid. Cease and desist from using my alphabetical letters and English words. I think if I build my house on top of your house you should continue being a clueless dumbfuck with no protest with regard to be fruitful and multiply means. Besides, you've got nothing. Therefore, you're stupid. An intellectual Glass Joe light weight I lectured to as a student in second grade. Not to mention on the wrong side of history.

even if they get a whopping 15 cents every time it airs

As if a /yawn and a middle finger wasn't good enough, wasn't even more valuable, for you. Come get some economics science PWNAGE! (Hopefully it's brawling enough wide enough for ya to be tempted.)

What is this assinine belief people have that everything should be open and free.

Some call it Freedom. Some call it Liberty. Some call it Give Me Liberty, or give yourself Death. What is this textbook mental disorder that homeless disoriented IP proponent fools have to sue in court plant life for failure to furnish compensation for the carbon dioxide production of ... [stupid people like hellwig 1325869]. Watch out, or special agent Mr. 1325868 will replace you. :P

Next time call me Sir with a capital 'S', Bitch. :P

Re:Make it tolerable? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24899779)

"Make it tolerable ..."

As the original submitter, I chose that phrase carefully. I'm trying to strike the usual, reasonable, Canadian balance. We have to. Oh, I think the bill SUCKS, as would anything DMCA-like. But, obviously, two successive governments want something like this to be brought in, and, like it or lump it, we did sign the WIPO treaty, so something is going to happen. I have to respect the fact that some people have a completely different view. So, let's talk about a tolerable compromise.

For example, I could probably tolerate the DMCA rules that apply to DRM if they changed one thing: that the act of circumvention was illegal ONLY if done in order to perform an act that is illegally infringing on its own. In other words, the act of circumvention isn't illegal if why you're doing it isn't illegal. If you're breaking DRM to exercise your "fair dealing" rights or to reverse-engineer something to be compatible, no problem then. The tools by themselves aren't illegal. If you're breaking DRM in order to copy and sell the result, you're in twice the trouble you were ordinarily. I'm fine with something like that. Break the locks to break the law, double the penalty, otherwise, there's nothing.

The mystery to me is why something like that isn't in there already. The people that wrote this thing are either pretty stupid, didn't read any of the pathological cases related to the DMCA in the US and elsewhere, or they don't really care about striking a sensible balance.

You're right, issues such as copyright terms, library access, and plenty of other things in copyright need changes. I'm all for shortening terms (50 years after creation is my preference) and not burdening libraries with the stupid idea of having to implement DRM even on things that don't have it already. I agree with you. But they put that nonsense in there for a reason to placate some other interest.

All I'm saying is, maybe there's a way for both creators and users to get what they want from changes in copyright. Copyright has always been a balance, and Prentice and his advisors really messed it up this time. So, let's tell him and any other candidate how it *should* be, and make sure all the parties get the message.

I mean, copyright law as an election issue? Something the parties know is of great interest to the public? Something parties will actually put in their platform? Who'd have thought? I can't wait to see the look on the local candidates' faces when I ask each of them what they thought of bill C-61 and what they would change if elected. We've got a golden opportunity here.

Re:Make it tolerable? (1)

Brickwall (985910) | more than 5 years ago | (#24900001)

I've already commented, so I can't but would someone please mod parent up? I completely agree; a balance has to be found between the rights of individuals to do what they want with the music/movies they have purchased, and the rights of artists and recording companies not to have their works stolen. I also agree there needs to be some limit on the term of copyright, and not the infinitely extensible 75-year terms favoured by the Disney Corporation.

And let's give both the Liberals and the Tories some credit. Both parties, while in government, introduced DRM-type bills. This was in part to satisfy our WPO obligations. And both parties let the bills die on the order paper. If either one thought DRM was really important, or was in the pocket of the *AA's as has been suggested, it would have been a simple matter to bring the bill forward. That neither party did suggests to me they aren't really interested in seeing it pass, and would prefer to see the status quo (blank media levy, etc.) maintained, just as they maintain our technically illegal milk, egg, and poultry marketing boards.

Oh well... (4, Interesting)

Safiire Arrowny (596720) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897837)

I wrote my MP for nothing.

Joking aside, she did write me back a with a proper letter and said she was against the bill and would vote no, so I suppose I should get off my ass and vote for her party in this election? (The NDP if you're wondering).

Re:Oh well... (3, Insightful)

neoform (551705) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897963)

While I don't think Layton would be a good prime minister, I'm gonna be voting NDP just because they will fight bills likes this, even if the NDP doesn't win many seats.

Re:Oh well... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24898265)

Please look at the chance of success in your riding first. If the vote might actually put in an NDP, go for it. If there's no chance you're going to have anything but Conservative, go for it. But if you're in a riding that can make a difference by stopping a Conservative win by voting Liberal, sigh and do the right thing. (Then go bawl out your Lib MP for what a useless party they still are.)

I'm in the last type of riding. It ain't a happy thing, but my god we'll be fucked if the Conservatives get more seats.

----
For foreigners reading along, here's how bizarre our riding-based vote-counting can get: Last election the PQ got 10% of the popular vote and 51 seats, while the NDP got 17% of the popular vote but only 29 seats.

All parties except the NDP got more seats than their popular vote would indicate. NDP only got 9% of the seats with their 17% of the vote.

So while there is a lot of support for NDP policies here (if not Jack Layton), in most ridings voting for them is a Nader situation as far as the results go. It's very unfortunate.

Or the Green Party.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24900197)

Greens blast Big Brother copyright Bill
12.06.2008
http://www.greenparty.ca/en/releases/12.06.2008

Re:Oh well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24900399)

I like NDP ideas.

NDP implementations of NDP ideas though....that's a roll of the dice. Not saying they're destined for failure, just that theres some sad historical precedents here in BC.

Re:Oh well... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24897969)

I wrote my MP 3 times and on the 3rd time finally got a response that wasn't boilerplate bullshit -- and that was only after I accused him of not reading my concerns.

http://www.jamesbezan.com/

Re:Oh well... (1)

Daas (620469) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898009)

Mine didn't and it makes me sad to think that my message wasn't heard.

Plus the fact that my MP is Raymond Gravel, the priest who became a politician saying that religion would not play a part in his decisions (Which I think he did all right) but "chose" to leave politics because the Vatican said so...

Apparently I wrote for nothing...

Re:Oh well... (4, Interesting)

rbergstrom (819587) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898155)

I wrote mine (James Rajotte, Conservative). I asked him why this bill criminalized fair use, exactly how he proposed to enforce it while upholding the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and how it looked like suspiciously like everything the American recording/movie industry lobbyists asked for.

Got a nice form letter back saying it was a "made-in-Canada" solution that "protected consumers". So, making me a criminal for watching a DVD on my linux-based laptop is protection? I think I'll do fine on my own, thank you.

Despite Rajotte winning this riding by about a 30% margin the past few elections, I guess I'm voting Green.

Re:Oh well... (2, Insightful)

JediTrainer (314273) | more than 5 years ago | (#24900015)

Good for you!

For my part, I wrote to my MP as well. Unfortunately my MP happens to be Bev right now (yes, the infamous Ms Oda herself). All I got back was a form letter telling me how the bill is 'fair and balanced', and the fines are 'relatively low' if you copy for personal use unless you break digital locks.

F*** you, Bev. You're not getting my vote. And I'll do what I can to get my neighbours to not vote for you too.

The only good thing about the DMCA is... (1)

jhfry (829244) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897873)

... the fact that it is difficult to enforce!

Woot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24897903)

There are times I LOVE living in Canada!!!

I for one (1)

themadplasterer (931983) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897925)

welcome our legislation killing election overlords.

Ok, two thoughts. (4, Insightful)

jd (1658) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897943)

First, there's never going to be a "good" DMCA, at least not in those terms. The copyright holders (not the artists, who generally get less from DMCA than they did prior to such laws) are trying to have their cake and eat it. Doesn't work.

Second, if you absolutely have to have such a law, or ANY law on technology, then it has to be written in collaboration with technologists who can help politicians understand what will and won't work, and what is and is not enforceable. You CANNOT EVER make a good law in a vacuum. Every single time politicians and a single special-interest side of the debate try to control everything, it falls apart. If you don't listen, you cannot learn. If you do not learn, you cannot hope to avoid the mistakes of the past.

Re:Ok, two thoughts. (0)

dark whole (1220600) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897957)

mod parent up

The amendment to tie circumvention to actual... (3, Interesting)

plasmacutter (901737) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897959)

If you tie anti-circumvention to actual infringement rather than blanket-ban it, that's a proper balance.

This would mean tools which meet the betamax standard for substantial non-infringing uses could still be produced and marketed.

among those tools would be region free dvd players, mod chips, etc.

DMCA laws generate too much spam (0)

xiando (770382) | more than 5 years ago | (#24897973)

The US DMCA laws generate huge amounts of spam to people in Europe from people in the US who falsely believe countries like Sweden are states in the US Epmire. The people in the US who have such a failed understanding of geography send spam who refer to some DMCA law they have in the US and claim that the good people in Europe should care about what it says and even send spam with threats about "legal action" which will be taken if the US DMCA, which does not apply at all, is not followed. DMCA-like laws in Canada would obviously be a very bad thing as that could add to the already huge amounts of DMCA-related spam the people in Europe get from accross the pound.

And nothing of value was lost (1)

Jorophose (1062218) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898007)

But let's not count the chickens before the eggs hatch, because the conservative "government" might not be wiped out entirely in this election.

Of course conservative party has never really held a real majority passed Sir John A MacDonald's days, or maybe Diefenbaker. So they could quite likely fall in October.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24899717)

conservative party has never really held a real majority passed Sir John A MacDonald's days

Uh, not so. Brian Mulroney, remember him? From wikipedia: In September, Mulroney and the Tories won the largest majority government in Canadian history. They took 211 seats, three more than their previous record in 1958.

Re:And nothing of value was lost (1)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 5 years ago | (#24900127)

Mulroney did pretty well for two terms...big majorities in each.

Is the Canadian DMCA proposal's life force (1)

Shikaku (1129753) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898033)

Is the Canadian DMCA proposal's life force running out?

I'm always confused about the argument (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24898049)

As a writer I find it odd and upsetting that people feel that I should have severely limited rights to my own work. Why should anyone but me have the right to my work, especially during my lifetime but even beyond that. My legacy to my family are my collected works. If no one wishes to buy the work that's called the free market and I'm fine with that but why should other people have free access to my work? Lets say after the 14 years as some have proposed I no longer control my work so companies begin producing film adaptations of my work for which they will benefit financially but I won't. Writers generally work many years before being recognized so say half my work falls out of copyright without being published due to copyright laws but publishers and studios retained copies. I become popular so then they are able to go to their vaults and pull out copies of my work and exploit them without me receiving a cent ever for my work but they profit. Allowing writers and other artists to retain control of their work harms no one but removing their rights potentially removes their ability to make a living from their work. I've already chosen to retire in three years in part because of the change in attitudes towards artists rights. I'll continue to write because writers have a need to write but I won't release future work to the public. How is this benefiting the public? I know other artists that are considering similar life changes. The surest way to retain rights to your work is to never make it public. I've improved dramatically over the years and I definitely feel my best work is still to come but the public won't benefit from that work. Allowing artists to retain rights in no way harms the public but driving them underground does.

Re:I'm always confused about the argument (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24898337)

I won't release future work to the public.

That is ABSOLUTELY FINE by me. I don't need your trash. I DO need the ability to communicate freely. If the "price" of being able to communicate freely is the "loss" of your future work, I can live with that. Face it, everyone's right to communicate freely is simply more important than your "right" to escape the free market via (technologically enforced or otherwise) copyright monopoly grants (note that if copyright exists, a free market _doesn't_)

If you don't want it copied, don't fucking release it.

Anyway, if I have a COPY of your work, you still have the work. Things are simply NOT WORTH the work put into them. That's called a "labor theory of value" and is a central fallacy of pre-20th-century economic thought, leads straight to Marxist communist theory, but is totally wrong.

If you think a "labor theory of value" is right (it isn't, but anyway), then I point out that billions of dollars "worth" of man-hours have gone into the sotware on a linux CD. NO single man on earth is going to equal that amount of work, ever. So, the solution is simple - we give you a linux distro CD, and maybe a cookie.

Re:I'm always confused about the argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24899339)

First tell me why your work should magically provide you a revenue stream for decades when mine does not.

I've fixed your computer, you can work on it now, but you only payed me once, I don't get money from you every time you use the computer, I did one job and got payed for one job. Why should you do one job and get payed for the rest of your life?

I'm just deliberately being difficult there, my personal opinion is thus;

I have no problem with artists retaining control of their works, what I have a problem with is corporations gaining control of works because then they start doing stupid shit with them and using vast sums of money to get the government to let them do more stupid shit, and pass even stupider laws.

What corporations have done with copyrights in America has done far more damage to society than one hack writer like yourself deciding to take his ball and go home could ever do. If money is your primary motivation than you are not contributing to society your playing to it, like the thousands of boy bands who were made and forgotten again, you have no cultural impact.

The artist, the creators, the ones pushing new ground breaking idea, that will actually help society, they just tell people what they have, because they want it shared. Darwin never said "hey who's going to pay me for what I just discovered?" and I'm willing to bet it was a bigger challenge to get Da Vinci to shut up about his latest ideas than it was to get information out of him.

They will bring it back (3, Insightful)

xra (1021817) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898063)

One more reason to make sure the conservatives do not form a majority government.

Re:They will bring it back (0, Troll)

m.ducharme (1082683) | more than 5 years ago | (#24900141)

"One more reason to make sure the conservatives do not form a government."

There, fixed that for ya.

Geez, that didn't take long. (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24898081)

Feels like just yesterday I watched the conservative government overtake the liberals. Now we have to go through another election? Yeesh.

Is it just me, or do most Canadians not really seem to care about elections? I've never heard anyone seriously discussing Canadian politics. I have coworkers who can ramble on for hours about Obama vs. McCain, but never have I heard people really debate issues on our side of the border.

The DMCA is a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24898489)

Hear me out -- as a copyright lawyer, the DMCA is a great thing because it lets me go around sueing people instead of having to get off my ass and do actual work (my doctor says I'm actually allergic to hard work, so it's important for me to avoid it). I'm sure that single mom can ask for a few hours more at walmart -- congressmen aren't cheap these days you know, and with Iran rattling their sabers it's costing more and more to fuel up the private jet.

BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

Where do I get a VISA ??? (1)

mmu_man (107529) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898725)

or citizenship, even?

Strike a better balance? (3, Informative)

erroneus (253617) | more than 5 years ago | (#24898935)

The balance in the the copyright industry's interests already even without their DMCA laws. It would be good to see a "better balance" but it is already pretty far in their favor with their "blank media" laws collecting them royalties in advance of its use (whether it is used for personal-use copying or not!)

let me be the first to say... (1)

acedotcom (998378) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899035)

w00t!

Canadian DMCA Proposal About To Die (1)

Fozzyuw (950608) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899769)

Canadian DMCA Proposal Needs Food Badly... (which is when the stupid wizard shoots the f*ing food)

Technically... (4, Informative)

Brickwall (985910) | more than 5 years ago | (#24899813)

The government did not "fall" - that is, it was not defeated in the House of Commons on a confidence measure. PM Stephen Harper is expected to request an election writ tomorrow, but the Governor-General is under no obligation to dissolve the house. She could ask the opposition parties if they could form a coalition government (unlikely, but possible), or she could refuse, and send Mr. Harper back to the House, where he could either dare the opposition to defeat him on a confidence measure (which would likely have to be a bill so contentious as to hand the opposition a ready-made election issue), or wait until Mr. Harper's own law which set an election date for late 2009 comes into effect.

Again, technically, once back in the House, Harper could introduce a confidence motion, and then ensure enough of his MP's were either absent or abstained so that he was defeated, but this would be so transparent that many Canadians would be annoyed, and not support him at the ballot box. Parliamentary democracy is so much fun!

Why influence politicians? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#24900631)

Why try (and almost always fail) to influence the bozos/morons/assholes in office? Why not move to Government 2.0 [squidoo.com] and actually fix things?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...