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!

SOPA-style Amendments Dropped From C-11; DRM Provisions Not

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the our-more-sensible-northern-neighbors dept.

Canada 50

New submitter Ashenkase writes "Michal Geist reviews what stayed and what was rejected by the Bill C-11 Committee Review. Looks like SOPA-style amendments are dropped except Digital Locks. There is still a chance for Canadians to have their voices heard before third reading: 'The Bill C-11 legislative committee concluded its clause-by-clause review yesterday as eight government amendments were added to the bill and all opposition amendments were defeated. The amendments included an expanded enabler provision and some modest tinkering to other elements of the bill. There are still several steps needed before the bill passes including third reading at the House of Commons, Senate review, and ultimately royal assent, but Canadian copyright reform is well on its way to completion before the summer starts. In the days leading up to the clause-by-clause review, many focused on three key issues: no SOPA-style amendments such as website blocking or warrantless disclosure of information, maintaining the fair dealing balance found in the bill, and amending the digital lock provisions. By that standard, the changes could have been a lot worse. The government expanded the enabler provision, though not as broadly as CIMA requested. Virtually all other copyright lobby demands — website blocking, notice-and-takedown, iPod tax, copyright term extension, disclosure of subscriber information — were rejected. Moreover, the provisions supported by consumer and education groups including user generated content protection, time shifting, format shifting, backup copies, Internet provider liability, and statutory damages reform were left untouched. This represents a major victory for the many Canadians and groups such as Open Media that spoke out on these issues.'"

cancel ×

50 comments

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

I bought an iPad! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39353745)

Did you hear? I bought an iPad! AN IPAD!!! Now all the guys at the gay bar will finally notice me! I've also made sure to buy a dozen pairs of skinny jeans and some emo glasses in preparation of receiving it on Friday so I can go straight to Starbucks and show it off! AN IPAD!!! WOOHOO!!

No victory at all for Canadians (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39353801)

Our Dear Leader will just try again in a few months. He won't stop until his corporate buddies get everything they want.

Don't be a moron (3, Insightful)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 2 years ago | (#39354525)

Whatever you may think of him, we're four years away from a federal election and Harper's Conservatives control parliament the C-11 committee. If Stephen Harper want to give his "corporate buddies" "everything they want," he wouldn't need to "try again in a few months." The amendments would have been approved, and the bill would pass the house of commons. In fact, C-11 is a reintroduction of a bill that died on the order paper last parliament, so they wouldn't have even needed to put them in as amendments: "everything they want" would have been introduced with the rest of the bill at second reading. Either way, any public outcry would be drowned out in a few weeks by the forthcoming budget debate.

Don't be a moron. It's not an endearing quality.

Re:Don't be a moron (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355029)

Hell-LO..., ..., this is //the name of your Conservative candidate's direct competition\\. You're a fucking idiot, you know that? How did a dipshit like you even learn to turn on your 'puter? I bet you don't even know that all the voting stations have been centralized to the far end of the riding. Fuckin' hillbilly -clickhummmmmmmmmmmmm-

Re:Don't be a moron (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356513)

I invite you to read the HOWTO on boiling frogs. It has so many applications.

Re:Don't be a moron (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39356609)

I finally figured out why Bell was dropping its push to charge for overages with the CRTC on internet bills, after the Cons won the election. Once this bill goes through all sites that link to torrents and any other so called infringing sites will be shut down and the consumers will be beholden to only the three monopolies for their entertainment thrills. I still use the term monopolies because the three have carved up Canada and they allow overlaps of their territories for appearance sake.

Re:Don't be a moron (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358213)

Only a moron would think that this is the end of it and that Little Hitler/Harper won't try this and worse again. Both he and the conservatives know it is a balancing act; selling out Canadian's freedoms and getting reelected.

You can eat your words when they table again all the items they couldn't bamboozle through this time. They will try again and again until they can slide it through without a fuss. Next time they will probably package it with other items like "all newborn Canadians must be tattooed with a serial number" or some other equally apalling thing. That way they can drop the totally outrageous items and still get to keep pushing their police state on us.

I mean look at the bullshit that they tried this time - "either you are happy to allow us to wiretap your internet connection without a warrant or you stand with child pornographers". Isn't that pretty much a direct quote from the current government? Either that item was a throwaway or the conservatives are stupid beyond belief.

Re:No victory at all for Canadians (1)

WebCowboy (196209) | more than 2 years ago | (#39357723)

There should be a "-1 senseless partisan rhetoric" moderation option. After just a few years of minorty-party rule political discourse in Canada has descended to playground fistfights and bickering--quite sad really.

How soon people forget what it is like to have a majority government in parliament. "PM Harper is a tyrant who will stop at nothing to impose his hidden agenda/corporate lobby buddies wishes/kitten-killing campaign/etc" blah blah blah. Same could've been said about Cretien, or Mulroney, or Trudeau. Big effin deal...Grit or Tory Same Old Story. This is a Tory majority parliament and thus committees are Tory-dominated. Inevitably opposition party amendments will be rejected. If the media content industry really WERE "Harper's corporate buddies" then all those additional requests from industry lobbyists could have easily sailed through, but they didn't. There is no reason at all to "try again in a few months" and every reason to push through contentious legislation you really want RIGHT NOW--early in the government's term so that the electorate's shot memory is more likely to have purged the event.

It is quite clear that SOPA-style control of information is not ever coming back in the life of this government. If there is no appetite to pass such distasteful legislation at this stage in the game--if they fear the wrath of the electorate that much--then it is a completely dead issue at LEAST until the next election. Furthermore copyright legislation will NOT be revisited even after the 2015 election--unless there is extremely concerted, international pressure to do so (and if there is such pressure it won't matter even if it is the Tories or another party who wins election--even the NDP could be coercced by such pressure).

Anti-Tory snipers here should make themselves more familiar with the history of copyright reform in Canada. The whole process started when the LIBERAL gov't of Jean Cretien chose to ratify the WIPO copyrigt treaty in the 1990s. Since that time the pressure has been on from WIPO and Hollywood lobbyists to have Canada "modernise" their copyright laws (ie. in a DMCA-like way). WIPO and the global copyright lobby were already growing very impatient with Canada by the time the next LIBERAL gov't of Paul Martin introduced C-60. It was a minority gov't so C-60 died on the order paper when a no-confidence motion was passed.

Minor adjustments were made and the bill was re-introduced with only minor revision by the CONSERVATIVE minority government as C-61...it too died on the order paper after an election of another minority parliament. The 3rd minority parliament introduced C-32 (tories again) and yet again it ALSO died on the order paper when the election was called.

The grits have quietly supported these bills all along this process, and if Harper really wanted to it could've passed fairly easily with tory-grit support, but with all the minority governments and so many more "important" issues around economy, social programs, taxation, law-and-order and so on it never moved up the order paper fast enough. And all along this long and varied path taken by C-60/61/32/11 the most draconian aspects largely fell away, and copyright lobbying was largely kept at bay. The only significant parts with teeth that are left and are of real concern are the anti-circumvention provisions. But guess what? The Liberals would've passed those just the same. Even the NDP which adamantly oppose them would've eventually done so if they ever came to power. Why is that? Because that is the core of what Canada MUST put into law to meet its obligations under the WIPO copyright treaty signed by Cretien all those years ago. From what I understand Canada's commitment is pretty iron-clad there--can't even weasel out like they did on Kyoto (which had an exit clause of sorts that Canada chose to use).

So whatever you think about Harper and his merry band of Tories it really is remarkable--and a relief--that they really DID listen to the right people here, regardless of who was in power. There seems to have been a pretty concerted effort to make the most minimally intrusive commmitment to WIPO that they could even though they really didn't have to.

Re:No victory at all for Canadians (1)

green1 (322787) | more than 2 years ago | (#39360571)

Why try again? they got everything they actually wanted, AND made people think that they didn't. It's win-win for everyone... well, except the general population, but we don't count anymore.

This is classic, they ask for a thousand things, and settle for 500, meanwhile the media reports how the grassroots campaigns won and that consumers "only" lost half their rights. That's not a victory for us!

DRM is still bad though (4, Insightful)

ickleberry (864871) | more than 2 years ago | (#39353817)

Imagine if a stand-alone DRM supporting law was created in a place, there would be uproar.

Don't be happy until this crap is completely dead.

"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39353819)

We can make our voices heard, but nobody is listening.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (4, Informative)

SirDrinksAlot (226001) | more than 2 years ago | (#39353935)

I voiced my complaint to my local representative and got back a form letter that said basically everyone who read the legislation is wrong and C-11 is nothing but puppy dogs and unicorns.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (2)

LostOne (51301) | more than 2 years ago | (#39354075)

Same here. And it had a brutally condescending tone to it to boot.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (1)

TheCycoONE (913189) | more than 2 years ago | (#39354307)

I didn't get a reply at all... though my MP was already against it so I'm guessing even if they did read it and agree it wouldn't have done much good.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39354881)

Aye - Same here. I suspect it was a form letter to be used by all "right-thinking true-blue toe-the-party-line" conservative MPs.

My MP is Jim Flaherty (the Conservative Minister of Finance). His wife happens to be the MPP (member of Ontario's provincial parliament) for the same riding, so it is definately a family fiefdom. Both are lawyers. Their ex-firm is suing Durham region for megabucks due to the loss of a USB key with patient info during the N1H1 mega-immunization - data loss bad, but I'll end up having to pay through increased taxes for any settlement.

Obviously I like neither Mr Flaherty nor his politics. He seemed so shocked when I stepped sideways to avoid him when he was glad-handing at the local GO-train station during the last election.

Anon, but they probably know who I am...

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355017)

He seemed so shocked when I stepped sideways to avoid him when he was glad-handing at the local GO-train station during the last election.

Hahaha nice B-)

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355637)

I know who you are, WhitbyGuy. I saw your shout-out.

I never thought I'd see a fellow GO commuter on here!

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (4, Informative)

jpmorgan (517966) | more than 2 years ago | (#39354689)

For the most part, C-11 is puppy dogs and unicorns. Remember that Star Wars reedit which made slashdot a few days ago? It wasn't released, copyright concerns and all... C-11 is supposed to update copyright law to reflect changes in technology. One of those technology changes is low cost and widely available production/editing software and equipment, and so one C-11's updates is to make use of copyrighted content in private noncommercial projects (like that Star Wars reedit) explicitly legal.

I've read the entire bill, and as far as I can tell the only bad thing about it is the digital locks provision, which is just a small part. If your complaint was about how awful C-11 was and SOPA this and SOPA that, like almost all of the criticisms I've seen, then they were right. C-11 is not and has never been anything close to resembling SOPA, and with the conclusion of the legislative committee, it will continue to be nothing like SOPA.

The digital locks provision certainly is distasteful, but it's hard to take criticisms of a bill seriously which fail to demonstrate more than a passing acquaintance with its actual contents.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (5, Insightful)

period3 (94751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355145)

That's because the actual contents don't matter - they're completely bypassed by the "small part" of the bill.

I don't care to read the rest of the bill, because it doesn't matter. If all one needs to do is slap a digital lock on a work to completely bypass fair use, then why should I read the rest of the bill?

The digital lock provision isn't a "small part" of the bill.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (2)

msobkow (48369) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359805)

Exactly. The legislation is inconsistent at it's core. It confirms Canadians right to format shift, time shift, and back up their media, then contradicts that with a clause that provides DMCA-style protections for DRM locking technologies.

It's just a matter of time until this inconsistency hits the courts and the DMCA provisions are struck down by a judge with a functioning brain cell (something sorely lacking in the Conservative's disputed "majority.") I have no doubt people other than me raised the issue with the government, and it's good to see that they listed to most of our concerns.

But the DMCA clauses attempt to gut the clauses that confirm our rights.

Maybe we should mandate that all politicians take at least one semester of philosophical argument classes before being allowed to open their mouths or vote on legislation. But that would be unfair to non-university-educated candidates, so maybe they need a "Logic for Dummies" manual and some online training courses as part of their "welcome package" for the job.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355165)

The digital locks provision isn't just distasteful. It allows copyright holders to trump pretty much all other rights, so long as there's some kind of a digital lock in place. Think about the logical conclusion of that: By slapping a ROT13 cipher on anything you produce, you can trump academic use rights, personal use rights, reporting use rights, and more. The loophole is so big, you could fly a 747 through it.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39355235)

"I've read the entire bill, and as far as I can tell the only bad thing about it is the digital locks provision, which is just a small part."

It may be a small part in writing, but it affects almost everything in there. It means that the copyright holders can trump any of the more enlightened provisions in the new law by installing DRM on their content. Want to format-shift your DVDs as the new bill claims you can do legally? No go. Not unless it's a DVD without CSS, which are extraordinarily rare, and most DVDs have additional DRM. Same for all sorts of things. Don't want to fish the CD off the shelf every time you want to play a game? Usually I'd install a NoCD patch for my legitimately purchased games. Not legal anymore.

The "digital locks" provisions negate most of the good points about the rest of the bill, and that's despite year after year of people pointing out the problem through multiple revisions of this bill. The facts are pretty clear that the current government doesn't care about the problem and wants to ram it through parliament anyway. They think Canadians are stupid, because when the government advertises "the new bill now lets Canadians legally do things they've always done anyway (e.g., format shifting)", the bill actually does the opposite, and makes many things technically illegal in the majority of circumstances whereas previously you could have defended yourself on the grounds of "fair dealing" and ignored the DMCA-like provisions (because they didn't exist yet). Wherever DRM is implemented, it rolls back the "fair dealing" rights we finally gained when the supreme court ruled on the matter back in 2004.

I don't like it, but apparently when this passes I'm going to have to break the law to get rid of the DRM on content I've legitimately purchased and want to use on whatever devices I wish. People who care about following the law are worse off.

Puppy-killing Unicorn (4, Insightful)

Comboman (895500) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355461)

I've read the entire bill, and as far as I can tell the only bad thing about it is the digital locks provision, which is just a small part.

But that's the evil brilliance of bill. That one little digital lock provision undermines everything else in the bill like a puppy-killing unicorn. Removing a "digital lock" (AKA DRM) is illegal EVEN IF you are doing it to create something that is otherwise legal under the other parts of the bill like time-shifting, format-shifting and yes even the noncommercial Star Wars re-edit (it's pretty hard to re-edit something without source material, and the Star Wars prequels have never been released in a non-DRM format).

Re:Puppy-killing Unicorn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358281)

I agree with the DRM undermining the other points that got taken out of the bill, however, how are they really going to enforce this? Are they going to issue warrants if you're suspected of breaking digital locks and raid your DVD collection? It'll just turn into the next cannabis, where everyone does it anyway and nobody cares but it's severely illegal.

Re:Puppy-killing Unicorn (1)

broken_chaos (1188549) | more than 2 years ago | (#39358353)

If you do something, like re-edit a Star Wars release privately and noncommercially, and speak publicly against it, they then have cause to investigate you for breaking the DRM. You publicly spoke of doing something that is not possible to do without having broken a law -- even if the act you were directly speaking of is not itself illegal.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39357451)

The digital locks provision certainly is distasteful

It is like saying a woman must have a threesome ... unless she has a driver's license.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39358647)

Hey, jpmorgan. Why are you shilling for the cons? Can't you hear the jackboots right around the corner?

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39359833)

what does it say about those words (Internet Provider Liability"?

"....time shifting, format shifting, backup copies, [[[[Internet provider liability]]]], and statutory damages reform were left untouched...."

internet providers are liable for actions of their users? because if that's the case, this is very much SOPA'd and not at all puppy dogs and unicorns.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (2)

travisco_nabisco (817002) | more than 2 years ago | (#39354999)

The response I got from my MP was obviously a form letter however it was very well written. Since my MP is in the opposition they were of course opposing the bill, however I was pleased to see that my MP was not opposing the entire Bill, just certain portions of it, largely the same portions that I object to.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (1)

Ihmhi (1206036) | more than 2 years ago | (#39355937)

Over here in the land of NASCAR and rodeos, I did the same to my two Senators and one Representative around the time of the whole SOPA/PIPA thing. I received a form letter of "this is needed to protect the industry" from one and a much, much more personalized written letter acknowledging the flaws of SOPA/PIPA and how he has never supported them (which is true on his part). The third person has yet to respond.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (1)

Nerdfest (867930) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356001)

I called instead. It's takes about as much of your time and I would think is worth much more than an email in terms of 'voter value'.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (1)

The Archon V2.0 (782634) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356453)

I got a letter with the wrong name (right address) on it welcoming me to the area and suggesting I vote Conservative in the next election.

I sincerely hope Mr.-wrong-name got the condescending jerkass letter meant for me.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39361063)

I emailed the PM and got the same thing. Not even information from one of his aids. Obviously they think they know more about this issue then a software engineer. Well I say we use this Legislation to really screw with them. Such legislation also means that if we say create a digital currency like bit coin the government can't circumvent the currencies digital lock. It also means that we can create software that transmits messages completely secure and they can't circumvent that protection. And oh btw. When we go across the border and the border guard asks you for your password you can say that compelling me to give you that password violates the anti-circumvention provisions of the copy write act.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (0)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#39354899)

Interestingly, I got back the condescending "you don't really understand the contents of the bill" letter that some others received too... so I rebutted the points one by one and sent back my response. I got no reply to this one.

Interestingly, every single thing I rebutted has been removed from the bill. Annoyingly, I never thought to criticize the DRM section.

At least maybe this means they'll put me in the "we won't toss this without reading it first" list in the future....

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (1)

Imrik (148191) | more than 2 years ago | (#39356771)

Or maybe they put you on the "toss before the MP gets to read it" list.

Re:"a chance for Canadians to have their say" (1)

Em Adespoton (792954) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366153)

Now this is odd... why does something factual and completely on-topic get modded overrated?

Likely because it actually says the opposite of what people like to believe -- that politicians don't actually pay attention to people.

Either that, or it was due to the fact that the parent "nobody is listening" that I'm rebutting was downmodded for trolling in the first place.

Now THIS message should rightfully be downmodded.

this geist guy is an idiot (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39354401)

"a new limitation on disclosure of security flaws that requires advance notice to the copyright owner unless it is in the public interest to have it disclosed without such notice"

This amendment was added and passed.
THINK how vague it is and how that affects you.
as well as many others.

AS usual when you put a lawyer in charge of your movement he eventually bends over and just goes oh well .....

finally (1)

alienzed (732782) | more than 2 years ago | (#39354411)

parts of democracy aren't totally useless! As for DRM, as they have been in the past, the free markets will defeat them. Everyone knows that DRM just makes products worse and doesn't affect pirates or theft at all.

Re:finally (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | more than 2 years ago | (#39359989)

Other than iTunes, there have been practically NO instances of drm being removed from any service, in fact everything is moving in exactly the OPPOSITE direction. Remember when you could tape your favorite TV show while you were on vacation using any off the shelf VCR? Now cable companies (at least mine is) are heavily pushing digital television which SURPRISE is 100% encrypted. They downplay this by saying "But the PVR does everything your VCR did and more!", but you are required to use THEIR pvr. This means they have effectively killed all aftermarket PVR devices and severely limited what you can do with the recorded media. Dump it to a raid for increased storage? Nope. Stream it to your laptop in the den? Nope. Copy it to your external drive for that plane ride? Nope. This is what the DRM provision is allowing them to do and almost every media production and distribution company is quickly implementing it.

Response from Gary Goodyear, P.C., M.P. (4, Informative)

MatrixCubed (583402) | more than 2 years ago | (#39354631)

Dear Anonymous Coward,

Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding the Lawful Access tools in our proposed legislation. I am always happy to respond to the questions and concerns of my constituents.

Our Government is strongly committed to ensuring that Canadians’ rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms are respected.

The new lawful access tools proposed in our legislation will not derogate from existing safeguards and privacy protections. The need to respect a person’s reasonable expectation of privacy, as protected under the Charter, always guides law reform. Such authority will continue to be exercised bearing in mind privacy rights under other legislation, such as the Privacy Act and the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act.

Police will still be required to obtain judicial authorizations in order to obtain information under our legislation and law enforcement agencies will not be able to intercept private communications or obtain transmission data without being authorized to do so by law. Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge.

While technology has advanced significantly over the past four decades, the legal frameworks and investigative tools available to the police and the Canadian Security Intelligence Service (CSIS) have not kept pace with this evolution. This proposed legislation would provide law enforcement and CSIS with the modern investigative tools they need to help fight crime and thwart national security threats.

The investigative tools created in this legislation preserve existing safeguards, such as requirements for warrants, court authorizations or other lawful authority to target specified communications. They are time-limited, and nothing put forward in the proposed legislation would reduce the existing safeguards.

Thank you again for taking the time to write regarding this issue. If you have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact my office.

Yours sincerely,

Hon. Gary Goodyear, P.C., M.P.

Cambridge-North Dumfries

Re:Response from Gary Goodyear, P.C., M.P. (3, Insightful)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 2 years ago | (#39354739)

See, this is why I get upset when people say "Write your MP!" when we ask what we can do about shit like this. What do you do when writing your MP just gets you a form letter completely ignoring your points? It's clear they don't/won't listen.

Re:Response from Gary Goodyear, P.C., M.P. (1)

Earache65 (681180) | more than 2 years ago | (#39362767)

Agreed, I'm in a hard core Conservative riding and wouldn't expect even a show of understanding on issues like this. Personally, I think most of the more vile amendments were used as smoke-screen to make us think we "won" something, and that the DRM locks are a minor concession that we can live with. But we know who the groups are that proposed those amendments (see Geist's blog) and the real backlash should be directed at them.

Re:Response from Gary Goodyear, P.C., M.P. (1)

AmbushBug (71207) | more than 2 years ago | (#39366995)

The point of writing your MP is to let them know that you oppose/support what they are doing. If they get flooded with letters they might reconsider their stance on the issue. The repsonse you get is irrelevent.

SOPA was never in to begin with. (3, Informative)

Dorkmaster Flek (1013045) | more than 2 years ago | (#39354789)

Just to clarify, as much as I hate the DRM provisions, and as stupid as they're being about them, the SOPA-style provisions were never in the bill in the first place. The copyright lobbyists wanted them put in, but they were denied in these hearings.

DRM / "digital locks" stupidity (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39354835)

It's still stupid that even though I can do X because of "fair dealing", it's illegal to do X if I have to break "digital locks" in order to do it. This is the same lunacy that made the DMCA in the US so ridiculous. When is it going to sink in that none of the format-shifting or other provisions that are legal in the proposed bill make any sense unless you can legally *exercise* those rights regardless of what protections the copyright holder places on the material? It's like saying "Yes, you can legally drive your car on the road, but no you can't leave the driveway because we've installed a concrete barrier."

C++11? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39354857)

What's the programming language C++ got to do with SOPA?

Interoperability Exemption... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39357513)

One of the Conservative ammendments was to kill the interoperability exemption in the bill.

Goodbye third party printer ink.

Goodbye aftermarket automotive electronics.

Goodbye third party auto mechanics (should the car companies add a trivial TPM layer on the electronic diagnostics).

Goodbye jailbreaking.

Etc, for anything else involving electronics where a corporation wants to not just sell you a product, but wants the power to control everything you can do with it afterwards.

Forced vulnerability disclosure added to bill. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39357631)

Forced vulnerability disclosure added to bill.

1823 years of a day, England Warwick county town o (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39360207)

1823 years of a day, England Warwick county town of la than Mr Than schools are held in the football match. There is a named William webb Ellis of the students,Jeremy Lin Jersey [jeremylinj...-sales.com] because a football error kick himself, on impulse, he picked up the ball ran to the other side's goal. This action though foul, but it caused present the interest of the audience. Since then, in the school's football game, holding the ball and occurred frequently, and gradually spread. Then some enthusiastic people through the study and improve,
Jeremy Lin Jersey Sales [jeremylinj...-sales.com] and gradually developed into a new movement. From gulag because of the development of the school started than a football derivative movement, they call it "gulag than football".At first the use of the ball is the use of the pig bladder after the sun dries blow up to use, the form is ellipsoid, different from the football round sphere,New York Knicks Jersey [jeremylinj...-sales.com]
  therefore also increases the ball rolling uncertainty, this is also the sport is characteristic of attraction.

Recordable media levy still in place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39373171)

So is the rrecordable media levy still in place? They can't have their cake and eat it too. It pisses me off that I have to pay $20 extra for a media device, on the presumption that I am and will be a pirate. Take an AppleTV for example, $99 in the US but $120 in Canada thanks to the "ipod tax". What's bizarre is that an AppleTV has no storage capacity other than the limited RAM required for data buffering when streaming media. So why is there an "ipod tax" on this device? It's not capable of ripping nor storing illegal copies, nor do I use it to view illegal copies. And how does that $20 get distributed and to whom, if I am not even pirating anything? Oh, but we're presumed to all be guilty by default.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>