Beta
×

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" Rising From the Dead

kdawson posted more than 4 years ago | from the once-more-to-the-barricades dept.

Canada 211

mandelbr0t writes "The Canadian Conservative government is preparing to reintroduce amended copyright legislation on Thursday (we discussed the rumor some weeks ago). Most sources say that the proposed legislation is very similar to Bill C-61, generally dubbed the 'Canadian DMCA.' It still includes definitions of 'technological protections' and criminalizes 'circumvention' of those protections. Bill C-61 died in the summer of 2008, facing massive opposition from the Canadian public. Once again, it's time for Canadians to get politically active; ORC ran a large campaign with the last attempt, and will likely be updated soon with the new proposed legislation." Read below for more of the submitter's thoughts on the coming battle.
As with Bill C-61, the Conservative government has launched a campaign of misinformation to attempt to force the law down our throat. Industry Minister Tony Clement is trying to convince people that "format shifting" is currently illegal. Of course, it is not actually criminal, and enforcement of private infringement, as always, is prevented by the fact that massive invasion of privacy would have to occur. Second, Mr. Clement is claiming that this law is necessary to bring Canada into line with the WIPO Treaty. The above readings discredit WIPO altogether. Furthermore, the two articles that are being referred to are Articles 11 and 12. Note the use of the phrase "effective technological measure" and the absence of any criminality requirement. This legislation is not necessary to provide amended copyright law that is consistent with the WIPO treaty, and will hopefully die an uneventful death, to be buried for eternity.

cancel ×

211 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I wonder if they will cut the tax... (5, Interesting)

mlawrence (1094477) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414150)

We already pay a special tax on blank DVDs and CDs because of "pirating". If the government passes this bill, do you think they would axe this tax? Would they be required to?

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (5, Insightful)

cosm (1072588) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414208)

If the government passes this bill, do you think they would axe this tax? Would they be required to?

IANAC, but from experience here in the US, once a tax is in effect, it is like a cancer. All it does is grow, and no matter what you do to get rid of it, it usually pops back up in one form or another.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

GumphMaster (772693) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414496)

One could say that "format shifting" taxation is perfectly legal.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415394)

Format shifting is illegal with DMCA.
So, we got a tax which has an illegal source.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415804)

Actually, from what I've heard, format shifting will be legal with the new bill. But only if there are no digital locks. So I guess in practice it will be illegal...

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416858)

In practice, this bill will never happen. This conservative government hasn't finished a session of parliament yet. They introduce a whole bunch of scary bills, then prorogue the house, or call an early election. They are the party that cried wolf.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (2, Insightful)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415816)

>Format shifting is illegal with DMCA.
>So, we got a tax which has an illegal source.

Nothing new about that, profit from illegal activities is still taxable for example. Remember, they couldn't nail Al Capone for his drink smuggling during prohibition - but they nailed him for not declaring the income he made from it on his tax return.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416612)

The question is why copying should be illegal if we already pay for it.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

silentcoder (1241496) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416822)

I agree completely with that. I merely pointed out that taxing illegal activities isn't in fact anything unusual. But the logic that you pay a charge because of copying should entitle you to make those copies is something I have no problem with.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

metacell (523607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416944)

Good :)

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (4, Informative)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415228)

As it sits right now in Canada, it can be reasonably argued that the levy is essentially a taxation on the consumer for the privilege for making private copies of copyrighted works. Whether or not one exercises this privilege does not diminish the fact that one still has it, so the levy has some justification on that basis. However, since making private copies wouldn't be legal anymore on digital media under C-61 or something similar unless the publisher has granted permission for it, there would be no legal grounds to continue the levy, since publishers will either be giving permission for private copying, making the levy redundant with the purchase price of the copyrighted work, or they will not allowed to privately copy at all, making the levy an unrepresented tax - something which is wholeheartedly illegal.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

gstoddart (321705) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417112)

there would be no legal grounds to continue the levy, since publishers will either be giving permission for private copying, making the levy redundant with the purchase price of the copyrighted work, or they will not allowed to privately copy at all, making the levy an unrepresented tax - something which is wholeheartedly illegal.

Yeah, because neither government nor the media companies will want to have their cake and eat it too.

I'm less optimistic they'll actually repeal the tax if they pass the bill.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32416502)

...unless it's a tax that rich people pay. Then, it gets cut.

Witness the income tax, estate tax, capital gains. Meanwhile, social security and medicare.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

clustro (1811836) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416586)

wtf does "IANAC" mean?

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416856)

I'm guessing "I an not a Canadian", not that there's anything wrong with that.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (2, Insightful)

Syberz (1170343) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416886)

IAAC (I am a Canadian) and I can tell you that you're right. Taxes here never go away. For example, the income tax which is taking half my salary was a temporary measure to pay for the costs of the FIRST World War... temporary, my arse...

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

Interoperable (1651953) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417206)

It's a levy, not a tax. The people that receive the money from the levy would prefer this type of legislation over the levy and the government doesn't get to keep it so I suspect that it may die.

if it's still there may make for a good court case (1)

Joe The Dragon (967727) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414348)

if it's still there may make for a good court case.

Even to point of be not guilty as you did pay for stuff you are downloading.

Re:if it's still there may make for a good court c (4, Funny)

Kryptonian Jor-El (970056) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414540)

Exactly.

Judge: Did you or did you not circumvent and redistribute manipulated copies of Iron Man 2?

Defendant: Yes

Judge: What do you have to say for yourself?

Defendant: I bought like, 20 spindles of DVDs last year?

Judge: Good, Good, carry on

Re:if it's still there may make for a good court c (2, Informative)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415806)

Actually, the blank media tax only covers "music", Movies are apparently not included.

Re:if it's still there may make for a good court c (1)

rikkards (98006) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416658)

That's right Movies and software are not included. We are also allowed to download/upload tv shows as it falls under the "rebroadcasting" rights.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32414400)

Well to quote an MP from my area, "Once any tax is put into effect, no government will ever attempt to remove it." He was referring to HST in BC, but you get the idea. The government, despite the change in power, will almost never attempt to axe taxes. =(

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (2, Funny)

icannotthinkofaname (1480543) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415332)

This makes perfect sense, too. To safely remove a tax, the government would first need a budget surplus greater than or equal to the money brought in by that tax. As long as governments have deficits, they can't reasonably do away with any taxes, no matter how stupid, unless the tax in question is illegal somehow.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415628)

To safely remove a tax, the government would first need a budget surplus greater than or equal to the money brought in by that tax.

ahahahahaha

hahahaha

ahahaahahahahahahahahahahahaha

hahaha

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414650)

They might not have the chance to go that far. Poll results published by La Presse today says that people are ready to go for a NDP-Liberal coalition as long as NDP leader, Jack Layton is prime minister. I am not sure if the Conservatives could form a majority government given an election. They have been a minority government for quite a while.

Canadian political system works pretty much like the one in U.K. and Canadians might have been inspired by the recent outcome in U.K.

La Presse is a French newspaper published in Montreal:
http://www.cyberpresse.ca/actualites/quebec-canada/politique-canadienne/201005/30/01-4285263-une-coalition-plc-npd-dirigee-par-layton-deferait-harper.php?utm_categorieinterne=trafficdrivers&utm_contenuinterne=cyberpresse_B42_acc-manchettes-dimanche_369233_accueil_POS1 [cyberpresse.ca]

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

Curtman (556920) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416870)

They might not have the chance to go that far. Poll results published by La Presse today says that people are ready to go for a NDP-Liberal coalition as long as NDP leader, Jack Layton is prime minister. I am not sure if the Conservatives could form a majority government given an election. They have been a minority government for quite a while.

Thankfully history tells us the conservabots usually get elected for two minority governments, then they go back to the opposition benches where they belong.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415130)

Most likely, yes. The Conservative government have expressed opposition to the levy for a number of years.

That said, I'd rather pay a fee for the liberty to format shift *ANY* material I've purchased than only be allowed to legally do it when the publisher says I can.

Re:I wonder if they will cut the tax... (1)

multipartmixed (163409) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417124)

> If the government passes this bill, do you think they would axe this tax?

Here's a hint: Income Tax is a temporary measure to help pay for World War I.

Why it will win eventually (5, Insightful)

RandomFactor (22447) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414186)

Bad law can fail a thousand times, but it only needs to pass once.

Re:Why it will win eventually (1)

Nakor BlueRider (1504491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414320)

This is what I worry about; it feels like only a matter of time. The only seeming way out of this is to have a law enacted that ensures consumers' rights are truly fully protected; but then, that seems like a nearly impossible goal to achieve.

A general lack of understanding about copyright law among people in general really doesn't help the issue. Here's hoping we can both stave it off a bit longer and find a real solution.

Re:Why it will win eventually (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415460)

Actually, another way out of this is to get rid of the WIPO's WCT and WPPT treaties. That or have your government amend them. The reason why this is being brought up again and again is because it's built into a treaty that Canada (and the US, the EU on behalf of the EU member countries, and a lot of other countries)has signed on to. They get trade deals because of being members of the two treaties and the contents outside any penalties is required by the treaties.

For some reason, people don't want to work on the driving aspect of this and only focus on the local passages. This will only delay the passing of a DMCA like law. It will not remove it. Changing the treaties will negate the necessity of it.

Re:Why it will win eventually (4, Informative)

bmo (77928) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414516)

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

--
BMO

Re:Why it will win eventually (4, Interesting)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415092)

The answer is to get a counter proposal in via amendments such as the following:

  • Copyright holders who misrepresent their copyright lose it (e.g. if you claim "no copy may be made without authorisation" your copyright is invalid because you failed to mention fair dealiing/fair use).
  • Copyright and any of their representatives have to be clear to the public that the copyright is a trade off with free speech. Again, misrepresentation as a property right automatically voids copyright.
  • Copyright only applies to formats which will be reliable and easy to copy after the term of copyright is up.
  • Reduce copyright limits to maximum 10 years.
  • Attempting to interfere with private copying becomes a criminal offence
  • Copyright only applies to works of serious artistic, educational, informational or intellectual value. Not e.g. to pop songs. (probably as an affirmative defence of "copying a valueless work")

This is unlikely to succeed this time round, but if people gradually begin to learn about it and understand the benefits of such changes then it may succeed eventually. Getting that kind of thing into the debate will make the lobbyists try to close it down really quickly.

Re:Why it will win eventually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415588)

Ugh, so many problems with what you said, but the best part:

Copyright only applies to works of serious artistic, educational, informational or intellectual value. Not e.g. to pop songs. (probably as an affirmative defence of "copying a valueless work")

And who exactly is going to decide this?

Re:Why it will win eventually (4, Interesting)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415828)

You know something? Those of us who have moderate views on copyright protection have tried suggesting all sorts of moderations like this.

I know of no country where a single one of them has been implemented. Yet I know of lots of countries which have enacted absurd "just shy of perpetual copyright, any attempt to break it is a criminal offence punishable by imprisonment and silly fines" laws. Clearly the copyright holders are asking for silly things and getting them.

We need to ask why that is. Is it because nobody is contacting their representative to say "hang on a minute here..."? Or is it because the arguments we put forward are viewed as being so pathetically weak that they may as well be ignored? Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

Re:Why it will win eventually (5, Interesting)

somersault (912633) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416108)

We need to ask why that is. Is it because nobody is contacting their representative to say "hang on a minute here..."? Or is it because the arguments we put forward are viewed as being so pathetically weak that they may as well be ignored? Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

Or is it because we the public aren't really able to provide any serious kickbacks compared to big business? Well actually we do pay a lot already in taxes, but we don't really get any say in where our money goes. I never vote in general elections - IMO it's almost entirely pointless - but I would certainly vote on individual issues if given the chance.

I understand that a lot of people out there are dumb fucks and that if the complete running of the country was left to public opinion then it could screw things up a lot, but I would like to be able to vote in a more finely grained manner on several topics. Writing damn letters to people all the time whining about everything I don't like doesn't sound like a very good use of my time either, I'd be sat there for the rest of my life just writing and complaining. And my letters would probably go unnoticed in the piles of other letters from other people complaining about asinine things. IMO we need national online polling systems. No more stupid, inefficient, buggy, paper ballots. I'm sure it'll happen eventually, maybe not in my lifetime though..

Re:Why it will win eventually (1)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416540)

Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

You mean like these [opensecrets.org] economic [opensecrets.org] arguments [opensecrets.org] ? At least, that's the way things are done in the United States.

Re:Why it will win eventually (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416580)

I also mean economic arguments in countries where they haven't legislated corruption to quite such an absurd level as the US ;)

Re:Why it will win eventually (5, Insightful)

Znork (31774) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416570)

Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments

Copyright holders have very few valid economic arguments; the economic effects of copyright are fundamentally equivalent to any other taxation scheme. Claiming that more copyright is better for the economy is equivalent to claiming more tax is better for the economy.

The more likely flow of argument is that industry goon tells USTR representative that more copyright is good for him, then the USTR threatens various countries, who cave in as handing money to the industry goon is cheaper than fighting trade wars.

Of course, the main reason they get away with that is because IPR funding isn't accounted for in state budgets as it's an externally gathered tax. Had the actual state budget had a '"insurance" payoffs to the MAFIAA so nothing "happens" to our trade status' line it might have been a bit harder to motivate.

Re:Why it will win eventually (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416814)

Copyright holders have very few valid economic arguments; the economic effects of copyright are fundamentally equivalent to any other taxation scheme. Claiming that more copyright is better for the economy is equivalent to claiming more tax is better for the economy.

The more likely flow of argument is that industry goon tells USTR representative that more copyright is good for him, then the USTR threatens various countries, who cave in as handing money to the industry goon is cheaper than fighting trade wars.

Of course, the main reason they get away with that is because IPR funding isn't accounted for in state budgets as it's an externally gathered tax. Had the actual state budget had a '"insurance" payoffs to the MAFIAA so nothing "happens" to our trade status' line it might have been a bit harder to motivate.

This is exactly the kind of response I'm talking about.

Forget about anything that's specific to your country, because we've seen similar behaviour worldwide. Copyright holders will bamboozle representatives (be it MPs, senators or whatever you call them in your country) with all sorts of figures about how much the film and record industries are worth, how much they're losing out to piracy right now, point out that every £/$/€ they lose to piracy means that the proportion of that which would normally be paid in tax won't, present some terrible disaster scenario about how many jobs would be lost (indirectly as well as directly) and how things are getting so much worse.

They've been doing this for decades and they've got pretty good at it - any counter argument has to be backed up with some real research, preferably from someone whose opinion is going to carry some weight, rather than some randomer simply saying "bullshit" and calling the film industry the MAFIAA.

Re:Why it will win eventually (4, Insightful)

metacell (523607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416792)

Bear in mind that copyright holders are using economics arguments, which are always going to be perceived as being much stronger than "I don't like this law because I don't think it's very nice" arguments.

It's ironic you should say that, because economic arguments are the strongest arguments against copyright.

For example, there is no doubt that copyright terms are far, far too long to be beneficial to society. One or two decades is more than enough to give creators an incentive to create; having longer copyright terms than necessary will only prevent society from enjoying the full benefits of the works already created. (Read Against Intellectual Monopoly [ucla.edu] for more economic arguments.)

It's mostly a matter of lobbying. For example, here in the EU, record companies approached politicians with scary-sounding numbers of how much the industry loses on pirating, explained how many people would lose their jobs if it continued, and got an extension to the copyright of music performances. So now Elvis Presley's recordings are kept out of the public domain for a few more decades (yes, the copyright to Elvis Presleys recordings are held by a German music company). The politicians themselves were too uninformed to see through the layers of bullshit.

Simpler Model (1)

Roger W Moore (538166) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416100)

The trick is to keep things as simple as possible (otherwise politicians get confused). So how about:
  • Legal owners of copyright material have the right to copy, modify, format shift etc. the copyright material for their own purposes and have the right to transfer this right to another if they give it up themselves i.e. sell the material to someone else.
  • Content which ships with DRM that violates these rights is not protected by copyright i.e. if you can break the DRM then you can copy and distribute it at will.

So if producers release material in compliant formats then they get the full protection of the law. However if they try to use technology to restrict rights beyond the law then they get the protection of that technology but not the law i.e. if you don't respect consumers rights then they don't have to respect yours. Seems to have a nice symmetry....

Re:Why it will win eventually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32416810)

One of the most common logical fallacies is that people disagree with you out if ignorance, That is if other understood the facts as you do they would agree with your views. Wakeup buddy, disagreements among individuals are mostly due to different objectives, not lack of understanding. Copyright holders have fundamentally different goals than copyright users. To put in bluntly both sides desire economic advantage.

Re:Why it will win eventually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415050)

Yep, that's why saying it came back from the "dead" was inaccurate. This bill will never die. It'll just recover and return. Don't worry Canada, America will convince your government to bring you the "freedom" of the DMCA soon enough!

Re:Why it will win eventually (0, Flamebait)

JackieBrown (987087) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415374)

Don't worry Canada, America will convince your government to bring you the "freedom" of the DMCA soon enough!

Because the Canadians are spineless and have no clear sense of culture or independence. They are either copying the US or Britian.

It's sad because every now and then, Canada stands strong and shows us what it can be. Unfortunately, those times are rare.

In their defense, as it seems to be the EU and US's goal to become a world nation, this is no longer a problem specific to Canada.

On the plus side, they do have beautiful parks.

Re:Why it will win eventually (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32416390)

We're spineless for having shut down this bullshit up until now while you guys have been under the heels of the MPAA/RIAA since day one? This bill isn't going to pass, just like the last one and the one before it - nobody up here believes in eternal copyright (because that's what it really is about) - and I honestly believe it's just the Conservatives doing what they normally do. That is, being shiesters who nod in agreement at the MPAA/RIAA and then propose a bill they know will never make it through, the Conservative party is a bunch of used car salesmen, everything they say is lies - whether its to the people or the MPAA/RIAA - except the people know it - and the MPAA/RIAA think they are making progress while they beat their heads into the wall.

I'm sorry, but you don't get to call us spineless when you are circling the drain, caused by your own nations political apathy and hyperbole until none of you are being rational anymore.

Oh, and we don't have parks, are whole country is our park.

WIPO (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32416722)

As long as Canada is a WIPO [wikipedia.org] signatory it will pass eventually.

Though, it's really time for Canada to "shit or get off the pot". Either reject WIPO or pass a DMCA (preferably one with no teeth).

You can do it canada! (2, Insightful)

arkenian (1560563) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414204)

Congratz to canada for resisting this so far, and the support from us sorry sods and brethren to the south to do it again. Hopefully if you prove it can be resisted the US will learn hope once more...

Re:You can do it canada! (1)

scout-247 (1127737) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414402)

It sure is hard with the pop culture brainwash to resist American lobbyists, they have pretty much dictated Americas policies, and are trying their best to pressure us up here. Too bad our current leader is a puppet for them. Maybe we should have a non-biased computer distribute wealth evenly, but no one would agree to it.

Oh well, there is a reason why I am supporting the Pirate Party of Canada, I want to sail the digital seas freely.

Re:You can do it canada! (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415458)

I find it truly unnerving that something as trivial as digital entertainment (and the oligarchical business model) is going to be placed with higher social value than my rights as an individual.
As far as I am concerned, if the movie and music industry cannot cope with the realities of modern technology, then they should withdraw to their own controlled environments. If they want control of their product from beginning to end, then the movie makers should pull out of he home market and stick to their theatres only. If music wants to retain total control of their product, they should stick to touring and radio play only. I see no reason why this industry should have the right to enforce their will over my purchases, in my home. They can argue all they want about consumers not having the "right" to diminish their profits, they also do not have the "right" to diminish my freedoms.

Get the fuck outta the home market if you don't like what's happening there. Someone else will step in to fill your shoes, I guarantee it. You want to keep control of your product? Supply us with an environment of your own, and don't offer the product outside of that environment. You know, like how you used to, before he home market was ever created.

Re:You can do it canada! (1)

ciggieposeur (715798) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416914)

I find it truly unnerving that something as trivial as digital entertainment

Because digital entertainment isn't trivial. The rise of radio and television are what the established interests have used to "thoroughly wash the public's mind as with soap" as stated by Scott Nearing in "The Making of a Radical".

Before ubiquitous mass media, the public discourse used to be far more diverse particularly regarding economic systems. Communism and socialism were seriously considered for use throughout the western world - even in the USA candidates had won seats at the national level. Once radio and TV came online however that diversity quickly narrowed.

Governments know the power of well-controlled medias to maintain the interests of their paymasters. Our "entertainment" does far more than just entertain us.

to be buried for eternity? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414266)

Can't happen until a completely different bunch is elected...As long as even one remains in government, the threat will remain very much alive... In addition to the letter writing, send the message at election time, or live with the consequences..

Ha. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32414276)

Of course they won't cut the tax on blank media if they bring in tougher copyright legislation. I sincerely doubt, and am sure I've seen articles confirming, that none of that collected surtax has actually made it into the artists' hands as proposed. It may not have gone into the general coffers but I would wager that any interest made on the money while the government holds it until they can figure out an equitable way of dispersing it goes straight to the general income of the government.

It's a government. It's going to have things any way it wants and change the laws to make it so, logic be damned.

please be broad-minded (4, Interesting)

uniquegeek (981813) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414278)

It's going to take more than one party to pass this. So no matter what party your MP belongs to, let them know you are most definitely not amused. And other parties *have* had a hand in this before.

I've always worried about the ramifications of discouraging people from tinkering, innovation and creative thinking. What happens to a technical creative process go when people are scared of doing something against the law? What does fear to do a creative mind, and what does it mean to our younger generation, and the future of our country?

So if you care, please inform others about this, and encourage them to follow through on making themselves heard... no matter who their favorites in parliament are.

(Love Make magazine's motto: void your warranty).

Re:please be broad-minded (4, Informative)

crucifer (697054) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414356)

I contacted my MP, he's in the "Bloc Quebecois" and he assured me that his party was going to second the conservative's motion to pass the bill. So unfortunately, this horrible disaster is going to pass.

Re:please be broad-minded (2, Insightful)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415020)

Well how about a) naming him and b) trying to get a protest against him organised some time soon in his constituency? If you leave it as "my MP" then there's nothing anyone can do about it (except call all their own MPs and try to identify who the enemy is).

Re:please be broad-minded (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32416880)

I contacted my MP, he's in the "Bloc Quebecois" and he assured me that his party was going to second the conservative's motion to pass the bill.

Keep to your namesake - as rtfa-troll says: publicly crucify the bastard in every way at your disposal.

Re:please be broad-minded (4, Insightful)

grelmar (1823402) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414464)

The current state of the political scene is working against the Conservatives here, so hopefully this will die another death.

The NDP will vote against this as a matter of policy. Heavy handed copyright just doesn't fit with their philosphy, and they know they would be in deep trouble with their core supporters if they played nice with the Conservatives on this. There really isn't any middle ground for them on this.

The Grits, in theory, could go either way. They've tried to push through copyright reform when they were in power as well (an failed). But they're lagging in the pols, so I would suspect they'll take the expedient, populist route (in fine Grit tradition) to try and close the gap a bit. Iggy's an academic, and the academic circles are almost universally opposed to this reform, so it would fit with his background to oppose the legislation. It might just be the podium he's been waiting to pound on the get some good press for a change.

The Bloq... Aww, heck, who knows. I suspect they'll oppose this just for the populist support in Quebec, but you never know. The Bloq is brutally unpredictable when it comes to national policy.

Overall, I'd say the chance of this passing is 51/49 against. But it's slim. If the Tories make this a confidence vote, it will really put the other parties against the wall, because a snap election works in the Tories' favour at the moment.

Re:please be broad-minded (1)

Nakor BlueRider (1504491) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414562)

I wonder about that last bit. The main reason the last election gained the conservatives seats seemed to be the fact that Canadians were pissed off that their opposition called an expensive and pointless re-election. If the Conservatives force a re-election in the process of trying to pass a bill that Canadians can't stand, the resulting election immediately thereafter might cost them seats.

That's a total fabrication (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415098)

The main reason the last election gained the conservatives seats seemed to be the fact that Canadians were pissed off that their opposition called an expensive and pointless re-election.

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

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

The Bloc is in favor (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32414738)

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

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

Re:please be broad-minded (1)

Tuzanor (125152) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416794)

The NDP wants the government to centralize and control culture by furthering taxes on blank media and ipods - hardly a benign and noble philosophy. The bloc tends to lean left on policy issues. They're probably support the NDP plan so long as Quebec got a "proportional" share of the funding.

It will probably die on the order paper... (1)

boojumbadger (949542) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414404)

when government is prorogued or dissolved for a general election, just like every other time. It is completely obvious that the public has no desire for these draconian measures but something must be done to appease the lobbyists. All the same once ACTA comes in Canadians will be effectively screwed.

consumer versus artists??? (-1, Offtopic)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414466)

Motherfuckers! Fuckity fuck fuck fuck!

Re:consumer versus artists??? (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414614)

Redundant? I don't see anybody else describing how this campaign is being pawned off... So those that are opposed need to frame it for what it is, an industry effort to suppress independent artists.. It needs to be made clear to the voters that this is industry versus artists and the consumers..

Just say no: Nuke the bastards. (-1, Troll)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414524)

Any half-intelligent Canuck has already left.

The fucktards are so stupid: they sit on a ton of oil in the tar sands, and just because it takes tons of energy to extract it, they don't. That's what local nuclear reactors are for.

At least they don't tax me any more.

Nyeah, nyeah, nyeah, nyeah.

THIS expat wants to see the place turned to glass, and yes, this is a troll.

Re:Just say no: Nuke the bastards. (1)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414640)

Spoken like someone who's never been west of Thunder Bay.

There are NO nuclear reactors in Alberta. None. One has been proposed, but so far has met some pretty stiff opposition (we likes our god-given coal, yessir).
So unless the price of oil skyrockets again or electricity suddenly becomes very very cheap in Alberta (not likely, given our lack of hydro and the snails pace of the wind sector), lots of oil in the oilsands will remain untouched until it becomes economically feasible to extract it.
Capiche?

Spelling Nazi -- spelt "capisci" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32414858)

Spelt "capisci", as the second-person conjugation, "you understand" = capisci. The missing "i" on the end when spoken appears to be an American slangy corruption, but then again I'm not that intimate with Italian, so perhaps someone else can chime in. More here [wiktionary.org] .

Cheers,

Re:Spelling Nazi -- spelt "capisci" (0, Troll)

JockTroll (996521) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415510)

"Capisci" is best said when standing above the prostrated and bloodied body of a cowering industry thug (copyright lawyer or such) while holding a tire iron, between one broken bone and the next.

Don't kid yourself. If you keep talking, they will win. In order to save the Internet as you know it, you need to kill them.

Re:Just say no: Nuke the bastards. (1)

Rene S. Hollan (1943) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415608)

EXACTLY! Build out some to extract the oil.

If it failed the first few times... (2)

somenickname (1270442) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414708)

If it failed the first few times, just keep trying. Surely we can either slip it by the public or keep trying until they lose steam or we've distracted them with something else. Do whatever it takes to keep the media industry funding our political campaigns.

Stories like this almost make me physically ill.

Re:If it failed the first few times... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32414790)

I've been wondering this for a while.

What good is the word of the people when no matter how many times they say no, to multiple things the government of Canada and the US for that matter just wait and try again.

It's like a spoiled child asking for something over and over again.

I/We said no the first goddamn time, quit asking. Once the public has said no it should be off the table for at least 10-15 years. But, in the current systems it just keeps coming back like a bad horror movie villain.

Re:If it failed the first few times... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32414994)

Tell me about it.

It's like internet censorship in Australia :
"We want submissions from people to tell us what they think"

Cue thousands of submissions saying that "it's a shit idea" (from everyone from Google to individuals).

Government : "Well, all the submissions said the same thing, so that doesn't count... and we''l go ahead anyway"
WTF?

I personally think there should be a referendum on every single law, and only then should it pass . Sure it costs money, but then you know the people are making the laws, not bought out politicians and corporate interests. WTF is the point of having a elected government if they keep trying to pass shit people do not want?

Re:If it failed the first few times... (1)

jimicus (737525) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415872)

I personally think there should be a referendum on every single law, and only then should it pass . Sure it costs money, but then you know the people are making the laws, not bought out politicians and corporate interests. WTF is the point of having a elected government if they keep trying to pass shit people do not want?

Ah, the Irish system. They have referendums (referenda?) all the time on important issues.

I'm afraid they too have their faults. Usually there are two ways to make sure a referendum gets you the results you want.

1. If you don't get the result you want, run it again a few weeks or months later.
2. Change the way you word the question. A referendum is almost invariably posed as a question to the public: "Do you think we should do this? Yes or no?". All you do is you word the question such that nobody's quite sure which box they should tick.

Re:If it failed the first few times... (1)

geschild (43455) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415250)

"Stories like this almost make me physically ill."

Lucky you. I was glad I made it to the toilet in time. :P

Re:If it failed the first few times... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415774)

"I all most make myself physically ill by my reaction to stories like these."

You might not be able to change the world but you can certainly change how you react to it. If you describe the world around you it terms over which you have control it might be a start.

Why Anti-Circumvention Sucks (5, Interesting)

Barrinmw (1791848) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414780)

In the US, if you have a DVD designed not to play on your computer (you play it in Windows Media Player and it comes up as cannot play due to copyright restriction) and you watch it in VLC, if the Movie Studios found out, they could successfully sue you cause you bypassed DRM.

Re:Why Anti-Circumvention Sucks (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415520)

In the US, if you have a DVD designed not to play on your computer and you watch it in VLC, if the Movie Studios found out, they could successfully sue you cause you bypassed DRM.

And why on earth would you buy a DVD in the US then?

It's more expensive than downloading it and equally criminal.

Unless you happen to have bought a DVD player, which would make little sense, having a computer that plays dvds.

Re:Why Anti-Circumvention Sucks (2, Interesting)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415902)

The scary part is if you only ever used VLC (like a lot of people) and just stuck the disk in a ran it, you would effectively be breaking the law without even KNOWING there was a digital lock!

Canadians need to push back... HARDER (4, Interesting)

erroneus (253617) | more than 4 years ago | (#32414944)

If the Canadian people were able to get the previous attempt stopped, then they also have the power to get some things back. Perhaps it is time for the Canadian people to get some copyright and related laws reformed. First should be to get rid of this ridiculous blank media tax scam. If there are uses that do not include copying movies and music, then the law is unjust and unfair. Clearly, it is and needs to be reversed retroactively... copyright groups need to give the money back.

Why stop at getting a new law blocked? Take it all back.

What happened to the public consultation? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415010)

They spent a whole year obtaining and then incorporating the results from public consultation into yet another version of the legislation, then they're going to try to shove the same DMCA-style stuff down our throats again, with a minority government no less?

I don't think so.

What was the point of public consultation? What the [expletive deleted] are they doing? They can have their stupid anti-circumvention law that increases penalties if they would just do one simple thing: have the law clearly state that if action you are doing is already legal (e.g., "fair dealing"), then the anti-circumvention part of the law doesn't apply.

[Warms up printer]

Re:What happened to the public consultation? (4, Insightful)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415784)

I don't think so.

Forgive me my pessimism, but I do. Public consultations are meant to influence public opinion, not to actually ask the people anything. When the European Constitution was rejected, the politician's reaction was that they "apparently had not explained it enough", not off course that the people were in any way right. For a politician, the people are only right when they elect your party or share your exact point of view, and wrong in any other case.

I am sick of the Conservatives (2, Insightful)

Phrogman (80473) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415254)

sucking Hollywood's cock. They keep trying to ram this shit through, I guess the bribes are still being paid in full.

I sincerely hope my fellow Canadians wake up and elect anyone other than Harper and his cronies. Anyone would be better, even Ignatieff.

Re:I am sick of the Conservatives (1)

sumdumass (711423) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415794)

I find it extremely humorous when idiots pretend to be witty.

While hollywood might have something to do with it in the original, the drive to pass a DMCA style legislation in Canada and Europe as well as most the rest of the country derives from two WIPO treaties. The WCT and WPPT both demand the DMCA laws to be passed. They don't dictate penalties for the violation or anything but making circumvention and certain other things illegal is spelled directly out in the treaties. Perhaps you should look at them and instead of waving word phrases that have nothing to do with the situation like sucking hollywood's cock and bribes are still being paid in full, you could do something constructive and actually address the root of the problem. Otherwise, anyone in the know (which your politicians will be), will just think you are another retarded monkey who doesn't know what's going on.

I'm sorry if that sounds harsh, but with the internet and how many times this has come up, I would assume the people commenting on it would at least know what's behind it. And no, this isn't a conservative verses another party thing. It's a treaty or sets of them that allow special trade arrangements once implemented and allows certain restrictions if not. Canada signed onto the treaties (as well as the EU) and eventually, any party will bring it up because it's sort of their obligation. Now if they back out of the treaties or get them changed, then your problem disappears. But claiming the politicians are taking bribes or sucking cock is not going to make that happen.

Pirate Party of Canada (4, Informative)

Nuitari The Wiz (1123889) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415334)

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

Pirate Party of Canada
www.pirateparty.ca

Re:Pirate Party of Canada (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415456)

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

Pirate Party of Canada www.pirateparty.ca

The Pirate Party will NEVER have enough clout to spread it's message. All they will succeed in doing is splitting the vote even more.

What we need is a Centrist party that will actually LISTEN to Canadians as a whole. I'm tired of all this slightly left, slightly right crap we've got.

We also need to start pushing the Senate to do their jobs as the "house of sober second thought" and block bills like this from ever passing because they erode the rights of the citizens of this country in order to protect corporations (mostly based outside of this country).

It's time our politicians started serving US!

Re:Pirate Party of Canada (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416562)

The Pirate Party will NEVER have enough clout to spread it's message. All they will succeed in doing is splitting the vote even more.

Given the success of the Swedish Pirate Party, with 2 seats in European Parliament and currently the third-largest political party in Sweden, I'd say your pessimism is unjustified. It's taking time, but the Pirates are slowly winning.

I propose a TWO STRIKES rule: (2, Interesting)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415568)

Any government that proposes the same bullshit twice is out. That should have prevented the European Constitution to be forced down our throats after we rejected it firmly.

Re:I propose a TWO STRIKES rule: (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415912)

Any government that proposes the same bullshit twice is out.

For how long? Besides, no government will EVER, EVER even discuss a bill that could get themselves thrown out of office!

Re:I propose a TWO STRIKES rule: (3, Insightful)

Errol backfiring (1280012) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416118)

Well, governments have a "natural" period that is the time between elections. But I think that is a bit short. My gut feeling is that any any government that tries to force an already rejected bill into law should explain to the judge (in any decent country that has a separation between law-making and law-enforcing powers) why that government wants to abuse its power and tries to circumvent the democracy. Punishable by a verdict that the government in question is not fit to rule.

Conservatists (1)

ultranova (717540) | more than 4 years ago | (#32415664)

Why is it that "conservatist" nowadays seems to mean "evil and stupid"? Or was it always that way?

The corruption that is copyright is contagious (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#32415718)

Of all that is evil, the corruption of copyright ranks right up there. It's evidently not enough to steal our capital, but now they seek to steal our culture.

To Quote Stalin (1)

b4upoo (166390) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416354)

"Not one step back!" Do not retreat one inch, ever. If they threaten you with taxes or regulations find ways to encrypt the material and pump it all over the world. The more they push the more you push. Make them dread a fight with you.

What lobbyist's do (2, Insightful)

MrKaos (858439) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416438)

Watching these laws being tried and re-tried all over the world demonstrates the will of the establishment in action. These legislations are continually presented all over the world and sometimes I wonder how long it will be before they eventually pass into law. They just keep trying over and over until they get what they want and all our freedom gets diminished into an illusion. Democracy is offered as the ultimate parody of that freedom.

I'm trying hard to remember where I saw a law passed that actually increased our freedoms. It takes a lot of time to read and critique legislation when you do a day job. Whats guiling is there are people out there who are *paid* to lobby for a reduction of freedoms.

It really brings home Jefferson's wisdom when he said "The price of freedom is eternal vigilance."

Re:What lobbyist's do (1, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416590)

I'm trying hard to remember where I saw a law passed that actually increased our freedoms.

      Kind of a contradiction in terms, really. Laws NEVER increase freedom. By definition they do just the opposite for "somebody", setting (hopefully) concrete boundaries.

      While not all laws are bad, unfortunately we seem to be legislating and restricting every single aspect of human nature. By default you are required to know the law since ignorance of the law does not excuse you from non compliance with the law. However law degrees for all citizens are not mandatory at the kindergarten level (which is the age where some people have begun to be held accountable under the law) yet.

      In fact, I think this should be another law. /sarcasm

Re:What lobbyist's do (2, Insightful)

metacell (523607) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416832)

Well, sometimes laws are passed which limit the government's freedom, effectively increasing everyone else's.

Money = power so it will pass (1)

BubbaDave (1352535) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416828)

Eventually, it will pass. Best think of how to fight back after it does.

Dave

Canadian lobbyists have learned from US (1)

HangingChad (677530) | more than 4 years ago | (#32416912)

If you don't win the first time, just keep bringing it back and back and back until you finally get the timing right and have enough legislators in your pocket to get it passed.

It's how we've gotten some of the more industry favorable legislation passed down here.

Badges, We don't need no stinkin badges ! (2, Funny)

ControlsGeek (156589) | more than 4 years ago | (#32417132)

As others have said the establishment lawyers keep bringing back the same old laws hoping to eventually wear out the resistance of the majority who continue to carry on pirating to their hearts content. Civil disobedience is the last refuge of the oppressed majority who eventually will rise throw off the shackles of slavery to the suits.

Wow I'm sounding like Karl Marx all of a sudden ! Too much coffee maybe, Sorry, I'm Canadian.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?