wkendhippie
Is it Friday yet ?
Premium
join:2004-02-16
Clarksdale
| reply to Last Parade
Re: Canadian bill to target illegal downloads
said by Last Parade  :Well, good luck enforcing it. I envision the scenario like this:
The OPP storm troopers will show up at your door, search your residence, confiscate your hardware and any analogue or digital media in your possession. You will be presented with a ticket 500$ per song and a court date on the spot. ('a la Street Racing law )  |
|
blueeyesm
join:2003-09-05
Waterloo, ON
 ·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to anon3454576
said by anon3454576 :
I'm sure when this comes into effect there will be ALOT less people complaining about throttling.
I don't thnk for even a moment that Rogers and Bell will cease port throttling.
In fact, I'll bet they will be allowed to examine the content of every packet going through their network to your modem, privacy laws or no. |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
 ·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
|  reply to Bell Martin
The bill WAS introduced today
»www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/···ogy/home
The federal government tabled new legislation Thursday morning designed to make it easier to track and prosecute anyone caught downloading copyrighted files, such as music and movies, from the Internet.
Under the proposed legislation, anyone caught downloading copyrighted material online could face a fine of $500. Individuals may still be liable for other types of damages or remedies. The current Copyright Act allows for a maximum fine of $20,000.
The new bill makes it easier for rights holders to prosecute commercial copyright violators while protecting the rights of consumers, Mr. Prentice said.
Under the current legislation, a teenager caught downloading five copyrighted movies in her parents' basement could be liable for up to $100,000 in fines, Mr. Prentice said. Under the proposed law, the maximum fine they could incur is $500.
The act is designed in such a way to punish those who distribute or upload materials to the Internet rather than consumers who download.
Also, as long as consumers don't attempt to circumvent the digital rights management (DRM) technology, they can transfer media files from their personal computer to their portable device without worrying. The new bill would make it illegal to provide market or import tools “designed to enable circumvention.”
Under the new Canadian legislation, ISPs would be obligated to inform subscribers when a complaint has been launched against the consumer by the owner of a copyright, however they would also be obliged to keep track of that user's contact information for six months in case that data became necessary for legal proceedings.
However, with Parliament set to break soon, sources say the legislation is expected to be left to die by the minority Conservative government, which is likely to face harsh criticism from opposition parties, making the bill difficult to pass.
The Conservatives are also negotiating with a number of other governments, including the U.S. and the European Union, to establish a new international copyright agreement, dubbed the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA).
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| said by TKJunkMail :However, with Parliament set to break soon, sources say the legislation is expected to be left to die by the minority Conservative government, which is likely to face harsh criticism from opposition parties, making the bill difficult to pass. I've been saying this all along - they appease the copyright lobby and appear to be fulfilling their treaty obligations by introducing the bill, but they do it in such a way that guarantees it dies on the order paper when the session of Parliament ends. This same thing happened under Chretien and Martin a few times with the exact same type of legislation. I haven't even so much as batted an eye over this legislation, and the above quote is precisely why.
--
I swear that I will faithfully and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. |
|
Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
·Bright House
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to Bell Martin
Re: Canadian bill to target illegal downloads
Write your MP, don't email. Write, it's free and you don't need a stamp.
»webinfo.parl.gc.ca/MembersOfParl···nguage=E |
|
Snickerdo
Premium
join:2001-02-28
Niagara Falls, ON
| said by Mashiki :Write your MP, don't email. Write, it's free and you don't need a stamp. You can also go meet directly with your MP, as they often have office hours on Friday that are open for the public to meet with them and discuss issues. This would be the perfect opportunity for such a discussion.
--
I swear that I will faithfully and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen. |
|
Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON
·Bright House
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| Absolutely.
Here's some letters from /. as well if folks aren't too good at writing letters, this should give you some ideas on what to write; or you can probably use this as your own form. I'd suggest checking the original thread there will probably be others later.
»news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?si···23770193
»news.slashdot.org/comments.pl?si···23770289 |
|
Tikker_LoS
join:2004-04-29
Regina, SK
 ·SaskTel Saskatchewan
| The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age.
What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?
Specifically, it includes measures that would:
* expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the "statutory damages" a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;
* implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy;
* clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and
* provide photographers with the same rights as other creators.
What Bill C-61 does not do:
* it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation
What this Bill is not:
* it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia
Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner.
For more information, please visit the Copyright Reform Process website at www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home
Thank you for sharing your views on this important matter.
The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of Industry
The Honourable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women
and Official Languages and Minister for
La Francophonie |
|
TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
| reply to Mashiki
When I lobbied US congresscritters, I found that using a FAX machine got as much attention as a mailed letter. But nothing beats going in person if you have the time.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page |
|
josey wales
join:2008-06-03
| reply to Bell Martin
The Canadian DMCA: Check the Fine Print
Thursday June 12, 2008
www.michaelgeist.com
As expected, the Canadian DMCA is big, complicated, and a close model of the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act (Industry Canada provides a large number of fact sheets here). I'll have much more to say once I've had a careful read, but these are my five key points to take away:
1. As expected, Prentice has provided a series of attention-grabbing provisions to consumers including time shifting, private copying of music (transferring a song to your iPod), and format shifting (changing format from analog to digital). These are good provisions that did not exist in the delayed December bill. However, check the fine print since the rules are subject to a host of strict limitations and, more importantly, undermined by the digital lock provisions. The effect of the digital lock provisions is to render these rights virtually meaningless in the digital environment because anything that is locked down (ie. copy-controlled CD, no-copy mandate on a digital television broadcast) cannot be copied. As for every day activities like transferring a DVD to your iPod - those are infringing too. Indeed, the law makes it an infringement to circumvent the locks for these purposes.
2. The digital lock provisions are worse than the DMCA. Yes - worse. The law creates a blanket prohibition on circumvention with very limited exceptions and creates a ban against distributing the tools that can be used to circumvent. While Prentice could have adopted a more balanced approach (as New Zealand and Canada's Bill C-60 did), the effect of these provisions will be to make Canadians infringers for a host of activities that are common today including watching out-of-region-coded DVDs, copying and pasting materials from a DRM'd book, or even unlocking a cellphone.
While that is the similar to the U.S. law, the exceptions are worse. The Canadian law includes a few limited exceptions for privacy, encryption research, interoperable computer programs, people with sight disabilities, and security, yet Canadians can't actually use these exceptions since the tools needed to pick the digital lock in order to protect their privacy are banned. In other words, check the fine print again - you can protect your privacy but the tools to do so are now illegal. Dig deeper and it gets worse. 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. Overall, these anti-circumvention provisions go far beyond what is needed to comply with the WIPO Internet treaties and represents an astonishing abdication of the principles of copyright balance that have guided Canadian policy for many years.
3. The other headline grabber is the $500 fine for private use infringement. This will be heralded as a reasonable compromise, but check the fine print. Canadian law already allows a court to order damages below $500 per infringement, so the change may not be as dramatic as expected (though $500 in damages is the maximum for private use infringement). Moreover, it is already arguably legal to download sound recordings in Canada. Under the proposal, there are exceptions for uploading or posting music online (ie. making available) and even the suggestion that posting a copyright-protected work to YouTube could result in the larger $20,000 per infringement damage award.
4. The ISP provisions are precisely as expected with a statutory notice-and-notice system. However, check the fine print. The role of the ISP may be undermined by the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement, which the government trumpets in its press release.
5. The education community received several provisions that are largely gutted by the fine print. For example, library materials can be distributed in electronic form, but must not extend beyond five days. In other words, it turns librarians into locksmiths. Moreover, there is an Internet exception that educators wanted but it does not apply for any works that are either password protected or include a notification that they cannot be used. In other words, online materials that are available under a Creative Commons license are fair game (as they are already), but most everything else is still potentially subject to a restriction. This was precisely what many feared - rather than pursuing the far superior expansion of fair dealing, the education community got a provision that does little to enhance classroom learning.
I'll have more to say soon, but the takeaway is that the DMCA provisions are worse than the U.S. and the consumer exceptions riddled with limitations as the government promotes a strategy of locking down content and launching lawsuits against Internet users.
|
|
digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to Bell Martin
If media content has DRM protection, you're aware of that before you purchase it. So don't complain if the law says that if you breach your purchase contract (express or implied) by rendering that protection ineffective, you're going to pay for it.
Opposition to this law is all about trying to stop the government from letting you get something for nothing. There's no free lunch. If you're getting something free without the owner's consent, it's no different than someone skimming your ATM card and taking money out of your account.
The "me now" mentality does not extend to unrestricted human behaviour, and then fear-mongering if anyone dares impose restrictions. With rights come responsibilities.
--
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke. "Walk the Talk". |
|
Cliffy
Premium
join:2003-06-29
Kitchener, ON
clubs:
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by digitalfutur :If media content has DRM protection, you're aware of that before you purchase it. So don't complain if the law says that if you breach your purchase contract (express or implied) by rendering that protection ineffective, you're going to pay for it. Opposition to this law is all about trying to stop the government from letting you get something for nothing. There's no free lunch. If you're getting something free without the owner's consent, it's no different than someone skimming your ATM card and taking money out of your account. The "me now" mentality does not extend to unrestricted human behaviour, and then fear-mongering if anyone dares impose restrictions. With rights come responsibilities. Yes we purchase something. And when you purchase something, you should have the right to use it in the ways you see fit.
If I want to rip a DVD to digital format so I can take it with me, how does that hurt the media company? They got their money, I got a product. I didn't cheat them out of anything, I gave them money. How is that not within a consumers right?
--
there's a fine line between a rut and a groove. |
|
capdjq
Carpe Diem
Premium
join:2000-11-01
Vancouver | reply to Bell Martin
What is the law at the moment? Is there any penalty for illegal downloads?
--
Religious War - The battle for best imaginary friend |
|
Mashiki
Balking The Enemy's Plans
join:2002-02-04
Woodstock, ON | Standard copyright laws apply including fines and imprisonment. This is an amendment that's excessively harsher on people even if you buy a product, and do something with it for your own use. |
|
dennilfloss
Liberal And Loving It
Premium
join:2001-09-09
Ottawa, ON
clubs:
| reply to Bell Martin
Here's another interesting site that has the whole bill.
»excesscopyright.blogspot.com/sea···sults=50 |
|
mordin
42 inches of 1080p
Premium
join:2005-05-28
Moncton, NB
| reply to Tikker_LoS
said by Tikker_LoS :* expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the "statutory damages" a court could award for all private use copyright infringements Except it states...Also, as long as consumers don't attempt to circumvent the digital rights management (DRM) technology, they can transfer media files from their personal computer to their portable device without worrying. The new bill would make it illegal to provide market or import tools “designed to enable circumvention.” So we're getting a double sided law like the US where you have the right to make a copy but it's illegal to crack the DRM to make the copy!!
--
Intel P4 2.8 800 fsb, Asus P4P800 w/1GB PC3200 DDR RAM, 512 MB GeForce 7600GT, SB Audigy Gamer, DVD-Rom/CD-R Burner & LG Duel layer DVD Burner, 320 & 120 GB Internal & 2x 250 & 3x 500 GB External hard drives & Samsung 226BW 22" LCD Monitor |
|
digitalfutur
Sees More Than Shown
Premium
join:2000-07-15
BurlingtonON
·Cogeco Cable
3 edits | reply to Cliffy
No, you have a right to use the way the copyright holder says you do. If you can't live with that, don't buy the product. If you're going to acquire the product illegally because you just must have it despite the copyright restrictions, expect to pay the consequences.
If I buy a movie on DVD, I have the right to view in private, nothing more. If I buy or download music, I have the right to copy it x times or not copy it, depending on the DRM rights that come with the CD or file.
--
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing - Edmund Burke. "Walk the Talk". |
|
Devanchya
Smile
Premium
join:2003-12-09
Ajax, ON | Wake me up when the GG signs this...
I'll put in $10 for the Charter of Freedoms challenge. |
|
mr weather
Premium
join:2002-02-27
Mississauga, ON | Hmm, smells like this could eventually make its way to the SCC.
--
"It's all coming down!!" - Mike Holmes |
|
andyb
Premium
join:2003-05-29
SW Ontario | I think I smell a lawer allready drawing up papers |
|
