Stop bill C-61 or face a series of crippling lawsuits!

[Mangle]

Government of Canada to Table Bill to Amend the Copyright Act
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/
Canadian DMCA will take $500/download from your kids' college fund - Boing Boing

They are going to table legislation either today or tomorrow that will make Canadian copyright law equal to the US. This will open the floodgates and tie up the courts with a never ending parade of lawsuits suing you for downloading TV shows, MP3s, and unlocking cellphones. Fight back if you care at all about freedom.

Also, don't you think it's kinda funny they're trying to sneak this blatant world policing from America during a war, which we are still in?

[rustybob]

What everyone seems to forget is:

1) You can only get fined if you get caught
2) The DMCA has many provisions that protect freedom of speech, as well as provisions protect website operators from the content their users upload and/or create. These provisions are what allow us to say all the stupid shit we say of FNK, as well as letting sites like Youtube to exist. If there was no DMCA, there is no Youtube. Period.

With that said, there are negative aspects to the DMCA as well. Not being able to circumvent copy protection, even in the case of fair use, is probably the worst aspect of it. However, if we are directly copying the DMCA, there is a board that meets every 3 years that creates exceptions to the DMCA. In the US, they come close to, but haven't allowed fair use format shifting if there's copy protection in between. Canada is a much different country, though, so it's quite possible this could be allowed in Canada.

So, copying the DMCA isn't as bad as people make it out to be. As with most things in life, you've got to take the good with the bad. But the next time you're watching vids on Youtube, remember, it's the "safe harbour" provisions of the DMCA that allow Youtube to exist.

[decypher]

^"Under the U.S. law, there is mandatory review process every three years to identify new exceptions. Under the Canadian law, its up to the government to introduce new exceptions if it thinks it is needed."

Often Canada isn't "more" democratic than the US as some may think. Especially with things like freedom of press. This Bill is going to get a lot of shit and definitely needs to be amended if it's going to go through. Again the educators seem to be getting shafted.

[rawb]

DMCA IS A COMPLEX ISSUE THAT TOUCHES MANY THINGS (LIKE mp3s AND WEBSITE CONTENT ETC)

WHILE IM SURE ITS BOOHOO TIME FOR ALL THE MP3 DOWNLOADERS THEY MAKE AN EXAMPLE OUT OF, THATS NOT THE REAL ISSUE.

DMCA IS BONERTOWN ON THE BASIS THAT IF SOMEONE MAKES A DMCA INFRINGEMENT COMPLAINT AGAINST YOUR SITE/A PICTURE ON YOUR BLOG/WHATEVER, YOU ARE CONSIDERED INFRINGING IF YOU DON'T MAKE A COUNTER CLAIM. SO IF YOU'RE ON VACATION/IN THE WOODS/7 DAY FUCK SESSION AND SOMEONE MAKES A DMCA COMPLAINT AGAINST YOU AND YOU ARE UNREACHABLE, YOUR ISP/HOST ETC IS REQUIRED BY LAW TO TAKE DOWN THE INFRINGING MATERIAL BY ANY MEANS (IF YOU DO NOT REPLY TO THE COMPLAINT).

FOR INSTANCE:

I AM DRUNK ON THE STREET AND LOOKING STUPID (COMMON IMO)
YOU TAKE A PICTURE OF ME
YOU PUT IT ON YOUR SITE
I SAY 'THAT PICTURE IS COPYRIGHTED' TO YOUR ISP (EVEN THOUGH IT IS NOT)
YOUR ISP EMAILS YOU, BUT YOU'RE AWAY
AFTER A SHORT GRACE PERIOD, YOUR ISP EITHER DELETES THE PICTURE THEMSELVES, OR TAKES DOWN YOUR WHOLE SITE (OR ELSE THEY ARE LIABLE TO BEING SUED)

OR SAY I WRITE IN MY 'FNK IS STUPID' BLOG
MYLES TAKES EXCEPTION, SAYS THE THINGS I POST ARE BASED ON HIS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
SAME SITUATION


YOU CAN EFFECTIVELY HARASS THE SHIT OUT OF SOMEONE WITH A SERIES OF LONG DMCA COMPLAINTS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO HARASSMENT CLAUSE BUILT INTO THEM. YOU CAN EVEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SAME SHIT MULTIPLE TIMES. ITS INSANE.

[Mangle]

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/06/12/tech-copyright.html
Copyright law could result in 'police state,' critic warns

The federal government has introduced a controversial bill it says balances the rights of copyright holders and consumers — but it opens millions of Canadians to huge lawsuits, prompting one critic to warn it will create a "police state."

"We are confident we have developed the proper framework at this point in time," Minister of Industry Jim Prentice told a press conference in Ottawa on Thursday. "This bill reflects a win-win approach."

The bill contains an anti-circumvention clause that will make it illegal to break digital locks on copyrighted material. That means TiVos and other personal video recorders (PVRs) will be made useless if television broadcasters choose to put technical locks on their shows so they can't be recorded.

People caught downloading music or video files illegally could also be sued for a maximum of $500, but uploading a file to a peer-to-peer network or YouTube could result in lawsuits of $20,000 per file.

Prentice deflected questions about potential lawsuits by saying the bill is necessary to modernize Canada's laws.

"You can get into hypothetical situations," he said, "but the purpose of the bill has been to expand the balance of protection between consumers and copyright holders."

Critics blasted the government for the legislation, with Liberal industry critic Scott Brison suggesting Prentice was proposing the creation of a "police state." He criticized the government for its lack of consultation with Canadian stakeholders and for not considering the implications of the bill if it passes.

"There's no excuse for why the government has not consulted broadly the diverse stakeholders," he said. "The government has not thought this through. It has not thought about how it will enforce these provisions."

"There's a fine line between protecting creators and a police state."

Downloading on the rise
According to the latest survey from Statistics Canada, one in five Canadians aged 16 and older said he or she had downloaded or watched TV or movies over the internet, an increase from 12 per cent in 2005.

The percentage of Canadians who downloaded music — either paid or for free — also increased from 37 per cent to 45 per cent in the two-year span. Part of that increase can be attributed to a change in methodology, as Statistics Canada for the first time included 16- and 17-year-olds in the study, a demographic more likely to download media than older groups.

Critics feared the bill will mirror the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA), which similarly brought in restrictive measures and opened the door for copyright owners to enact huge lawsuits against violators.

Prentice has said on several occasions that Canada's Copyright Act must be amended to bring the country into compliance with the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty it signed in 1996. The act was last overhauled in 1997.

The minister was forced to retreat on introducing the bill in December after being hit with major public opposition. More than 20,000 people joined a protest group started on social networking site Facebook by University of Ottawa internet and e-commerce Prof. Michael Geist, an outspoken critic of the bill.

The opposition to the legislation has only grown since then, with the Facebook group counting more than 40,000 members now.

Canadian artists, librarians and students, as well as a business coalition made up of some of Canada's biggest companies — including Rogers Communications Inc. and Telus Corp., as well as Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. — have expressed their opposition to any legislation that imposes harsh copyright restrictions.

Opposition widespread
The chorus of opposition was joined last week by a coalition of consumer groups — including Option consommateurs, Consumers Council of Canada, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC), and Online Rights Canada (OnlineRights.ca) — that wrote a letter to the two ministers. The consumer groups expressed dismay they had not been consulted on the legislation.

Prentice responded to questioning in the House of Commons last week by saying he would not introduce the bill until he and Heritage Minister Josée Verner were satisfied that it struck the right balance between consumers and copyright holders.

Geist has repeatedly attacked the government on his blog for its lack of consultation with the Canadian public on the issue. However, Prentice has met with U.S. trade representatives and entertainment industry lobbyists to discuss the legislation.

"Prentice should be honest about the core anti-circumvention rules that are likely to mirror the DMCA and run counter to the concerns of business, education and consumer groups," Geist wrote on his blog. "Those rules are quite clearly 'Born in the USA.'"

[rustybob]

Originally Posted by rawb

OR SAY I WRITE IN MY 'FNK IS STUPID' BLOG
MYLES TAKES EXCEPTION, SAYS THE THINGS I POST ARE BASED ON HIS COPYRIGHTED MATERIAL
SAME SITUATION


YOU CAN EFFECTIVELY HARASS THE SHIT OUT OF SOMEONE WITH A SERIES OF LONG DMCA COMPLAINTS, BECAUSE THERE IS NO HARASSMENT CLAUSE BUILT INTO THEM. YOU CAN EVEN COMPLAIN ABOUT THE SAME SHIT MULTIPLE TIMES. ITS INSANE.

This part is incorrect. There are parts in the DMCA that disallow takedowns on the same content, and for knowingly using takedown notices for non-infringing contect. Viacom and Universal almost got roasted on the non-infringing part for videos on Youtube. Viacom got sued for taking down a parody with clips from the Colbert Report, which falls under fair use. Universal got sued for taking down a video that had a dancing baby that had a song playing in the background.

What I think Canada's biggest problem is that we've got no one like the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF helped the parties bring lawsuits against Viacom and Universal, including footing the bill for lawyers. They've also helped a lot of people in file-sharing cases. Not many people have the cash to fight a major corporation, so I think you'll see plenty of non-infringing content permanently removed.

[rawb]

Originally Posted by rustybob

This part is incorrect. There are parts in the DMCA that disallow takedowns on the same content, and for knowingly using takedown notices for non-infringing contect. Viacom and Universal almost got roasted on the non-infringing part for videos on Youtube. Viacom got sued for taking down a parody with clips from the Colbert Report, which falls under fair use. Universal got sued for taking down a video that had a dancing baby that had a song playing in the background.

What I think Canada's biggest problem is that we've got no one like the Electronic Frontier Foundation. The EFF helped the parties bring lawsuits against Viacom and Universal, including footing the bill for lawyers. They've also helped a lot of people in file-sharing cases. Not many people have the cash to fight a major corporation, so I think you'll see plenty of non-infringing content permanently removed.

WELL YEAH, YOU CAN SUE COMPANIES BACK, BUT THAT REQUIRES MONEY.

[Phrenetic]

They look at what we search and download every month without a warrant anyway!

[Mangle]

Bill C-61
See the bill in its entirety.

[NinjaBoy]

Keep in mind that this bill will probably not pass due to the conservatives minority status.

Also, other political parties being associated with this would kill themselves in the election. So don't expect majority support.

And failing that, if there is an election in the fall this would be tossed out.

[Mangle]

I just can't believe the Conservatives are pulling this sh!t during a war, food shortage, gas crisis, Darfur, net neutrality... aren't there a billion more important things they should be tabling right now other than "let's give American corporations more money"? Is that really what they want to go into an election with?

[NinjaBoy]

Originally Posted by Mangle

I just can't believe the Conservatives are pulling this sh!t during a war, food shortage, gas crisis, Darfur, net neutrality... aren't there a billion more important things they should be tabling right now other than "let's give American corporations more money"? Is that really what they want to go into an election with?

This isn't an issue that they are hoping to win the election with. If anything, I think they are using it as a Hail Mary to try and win support with copyright holders that have been angry for so long.

Kind of sad that a law that effects all Canadians can be purposed to help a small group of people flex their muscle.

The argument the conservatives seem to be playing is: "The majority of Canadians don't need to worry, this is only about targeting large libraries MP3's distributed by a few individuals."

While that argument might sound good in their heads, it's ludicrous. The bill is targeted to make private data easily available to police.

Also, even if their intention is correct, you can't have a law and say "well we only want to use this in some cases". Any law is open to exploitation and this more then most.

[Mangle]

Originally Posted by NinjaBoy

The argument the conservatives seem to be playing is: "The majority of Canadians don't need to worry, this is only about targeting large libraries MP3's distributed by a few individuals."

Yeah, I think they said the same thing when they cracked down on pot early in their administration. Now BC still won't prosecute possession, but the federal crown is. What a gawd awful mess.