Canada's Version of The Millenium Copyright Act

[Tom Saurus]

Here is a link to a news article about what the Canadian Federal Government is proposing for its citizens in this the digital age. This concerns Copyright issues.

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/442126

[lordsmurf]

Also at http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008/06/12/tech-copyright.html

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 critics 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 news conference in Ottawa on Thursday. "This bill reflects a win-win approach."

However, Liberal industry critic Scott Brison blasted 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."

Bill C-61 spells out consumers' rights in how they are allowed to copy media and clears up some grey areas. Existing laws do not specifically allow consumers to copy books, newspapers, periodicals, photographs, videocassettes and music. The new bill would expressly allow them to make one copy of each item per device owned, such as a computer or MP3 player. The bill would also expressly allow consumers to record television and radio programs for later viewing.

The Conservatives' bill, however, also contains an anti-circumvention clause that will make it illegal to break digital locks on copyrighted material, which critics say could trump all of the new allowances. CD and DVD makers could put copy protections on their discs, or television networks could attach technological flags to programs that would prevent them from being recorded onto TiVos and other personal video recorders.

Cellphones would also be locked down, so when consumers buy a device from one carrier, they would be unable to use it with another. Breaking any of these locks could result in lawsuits seeking up to $20,000 in damages.

University of Ottawa internet law professor Michael Geist, a vocal opponent of the legislation, said the anti-circumvention clause invalidates all the other new provisions.

"They've got a few headline-grabbing reforms but the reality is those are also undermined by this anti-circumvention legislation. They've essentially provided digital rights to the U.S. and entertainment lobby and a few analog rights to Canadians," Geist told CBCNews.ca. "The truth of the matter is the reforms are laden with all sorts of limitations and in some cases rendered inoperable."

Cory Doctorow, co-editor of the influential Boing Boing blog, said the anti-circumvention clause will lead to a revival of digital rights management, or the software that prevents media from being copied. The entertainment industry has for the past few years been moving away from protecting its content with DRM because consumers have shied away from buying restricted media.

"You have to wonder what they're smoking on Parliament Hill if they think there's this compelling need for DRM, given that the marketplace seems to be rejecting it left, right and centre," he told CBCNews.ca.
YouTube uploads could bring lawsuits

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.

Canadian internet service providers, meanwhile, would continue to be immune to lawsuits from copyright holders for infringements over their networks. The bill recognizes ISPs as intermediaries and would only require them to pass on violation notices from copyright holders to their customers.

Prentice deflected questions about potential lawsuits by saying the bill is necessary to modernize Canada's laws and bring it up to date with its obligations under the World Intellectual Property Organization (WIPO) treaty it signed more than a decade ago.

"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."

"In fact, it touches each and every one of us, and it is no surprise to find so many different points of view with respect to copyright," he said.

The bill will receive its second reading after Parliament's summer break, which is expected to begin soon. Brison told CBCNews.ca that the Liberals plan to put together amendments to the bill over the summer.
Bill praised by video game, music industry groups

Some copyright holders voiced their support for the bill. The Entertainment Software Association of Canada, the video game industry's lobby group, praised the legislation for trying to protect Canada's industries and artists from theft.

“It’s simple: Every time someone acquires an illegal copy of a video game, money, in turn, is not going to those Canadians who work so hard to develop and publish games. That’s money that cannot be reinvested in creativity, job growth and industry development,” Joan Ramsay, president of the group's board of directors, said in a statement. “Copyright reform is essential to strengthen our competitiveness as an industry.”

A coalition of eight music lobby groups, including the Alliance of Canadian Cinema, Television and Radio Artists (ACTRA) and the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA), jointly thanked the government for tabling a bill it said was long overdue. The coalition said it represents 21,000 performers and 15,000 musicians, artist managers, music publishers, music retailers, manufacturers, record labels, and distributors and retailers of musical instruments.

"Vocal opponents of this bill will characterize it as mimicking what's already been done in the U.S., but that's oversimplifying things," Stephen Waddell, ACTRA's national executive director, said in a statement. "Around the world, 64 countries have already implemented the WIPO copyright treaties. Canada is at least going in the direction of finally catching up."
Prices of computers, iPods could jump

Intellectual property experts said the bill is mixed in the benefits it would provide and the problems it would create.

Mark Hayes, partner in the intellectual property group of Blake, Cassels & Graydon LLP in Toronto, said ISPs — which got the exemption from prosecution they wanted — and educational institutions, which would be able to copy materials from the internet that they previously could not, were among the winners. Consumers would also benefit because what they can do with their media has now been spelled out.

"They get some recognition of the rights to time shift and format shift," he said. "Before, nobody knew what the rules were."

Among the losers could be consumers shopping for electronics devices. Although the bill allows consumers to make a certain number of copies of their media, copyright owners could seek extra charges for the additional copies that will doubtlessly be made.

"Owners of computers and iPods could end up paying quite a bit more for those products in the future," Hayes said.
Downloading on the rise

According to the latest survey from Statistics Canada, one in five Canadians aged 16 and older who used the internet at home said they had downloaded or watched TV or movies over the internet, an increase from 12 per cent in 2005.

The percentage of home internet users 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.

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 before the bill was introduced. More than 1,000 new members joined the group on Thursday, with many expressing their outrage with the proposed legislation.

"I was a Conservative until this morning. This one has crossed the line," one member wrote. "We need an election. 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 government. 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 public consultation 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.'"

[ron spencer]

this is really aimed at the limewire P2P crowd...why anybody uses them anymore is beyind me

[oldfart13]

Probably because some content available there is only available there. Have you tried to find TV programs in another language from sources inside Canada? Other than big cities like Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, it may be impossible. I have freinds that laws like this will affect badly as they will now no longer be ble to get anything in their native tongue. They generally get their stuff from P2P sources as others who speak their language share what they have. The stations that broadcast the material are on the other side of the planet and have no footprint in North America at all, so we're not talking big losses here.

Now, it begs the question, is this still only a bill, or has it passed into law?

[Grain]

Not a law yet...

[ron spencer]

this is typical Canadiana though....lots of substance.....but little bite.

With ISPs not on the hock there will be no "reporting"...HTPCs will still be made, et.c

[oldfart13]

Non consultation with the public is what the Harper Conservative Government is all about though isn't it?

[Constant Gardener]

This bill will pass. The Liberals will follow their usual habit of running away from any vote that might upset the Conservatives or - gasp! - precipitate an election.

Better get used to Media Cops searching your mp3 player, your computer, your library, and monitoring everything you do on the internet.

Remember, this government is the same bunch that introduced "emissions density" to us, got rid of that annoying nuclear watchdog, and dumped the national science advisor. I cannot support their actions.

</rant>

[redwudz]

To all: Political discussions are in violation of our rules and will get this thread locked or deleted. Fair warning.

Please read our rules before posting.

Moderator redwudz

[Hank Kinsley]

This has to do with the future of Audio/Video downloading and how current political decisions effect this. This isn't Obama vs. McCain.

All due respect but can't you read Mr. Mod? This site is based on the ability to do this!!!

[Constant Gardener]

Politics aside, and speaking as a regular Usenet poster, if this bill becomes law, I would have to find another hobby. I doubt the law is concerned about individuals fiddling with their AV collection, but posting to a monitored global distribution network would invite too much interest for my taste.

[victoriabears]

As an ex brit and miss my bbc terribly.

What cracks me up is that why anyone would want to keep the majority of commercial break ridden, content crapola North American Tv is beyond me.

I started recording things like Silent Witness and editing out the commercials, blimey-easier to get it off torrent sites.

[satviewer2000]

With the way the legislation is worded, it sounds like it would be up to the MEDIA COMPANIES to hire private detective agencies to track down teens and/or other law abiding citizens who happen to have an MP3 or 2 that are off the internet. I suppose given the $500 limit, they'll probably be going after the prolific download/posters and hopefully not the casual users.

In any case, it doesn't sound like the QC will support it, and possibly the Reds. Maybe it'll even trigger an election? Seems silly for something like this to trigger an election though. I think they did it mainly to make the American media companies happy.

[Hank Kinsley]

victoriabears, I get Foyle's War from torrent sites!! It's my only option. It's not the American shows, save a few, that I'm concerned with.

I just can't believe Canada would sink this low. I'm embarrassed to be Canadian because of this backwards legislation

[usually_quiet]

Blame the US if you want, but there are Canadian companies which make money from the distribution of content from outside of Canada to Canadian audiences that may have had something to do with this. Canada also produces content, and no doubt the people who make it want it protected, and hope to re-sell it inside or outside of Canada, either in syndication or on DVD. Allowing people to upload or download cuts into the profits. (Well, that is the conventional wisdom on the subject from the viewpoint of content producers and distributors.)

It's true that far more content from the US appears in Canada than the other way around, but I am hundreds of miles from the border, and I have watched DaVinci's Inquest and Corner Gas in syndication here in the US. In the past I have watched a few others too. I would not be surprised to see more Canadian shows appear in the US because it is less expensive to buy a good show in syndication that would be new to most of the US population than it would be to actually produce a new one.

[gll99]

It's obvious by some of the comments that some have not read the bill.

[Vid-Kid]

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you, usually_quiet. Canadian film companies are strictly small-time operations that are heavily funded by the Canadian government. They simply don't have the clout to push the government to enact a bill like this. In addition, the shows that you mention get played to death on Canadian TV as it is, for years! No, the pressure to is definitely coming from the US movie industry.

Over the last year or two, the US movie industry has been painting a picture of Canada (like it has with many European countries) as being filled with pirates, armed with video cameras and twitching record button fingers. Over the last year, they have ranked us along side the Chinese as a global threat to the entertainment world, intentionally held back the release of some movies in attempts to force Canada to enact US style recording laws, and even sent Arnold Schwarzenegger to Parliment Hill in Ottawa to talk to our Prime Minister. It made all the papers. Nice publicity photos, but we all knew why he was here.

The vast majority of the newly released films that appear on the web, that are worth watching, are movie DVD screeners. Those DVD screeners are shipped out by the hundreds by the US movie studios themselves to their own members. It is rumored that the screeners have a hidden watermark of some sort that can be used to track who the screener was sent to. Strangely you never ever hear about any of those people getting hassled. It's always Joe Dirt with his $300 video camera, who makes the blurred, jittery, cropped videos with the crappy sound and members of the theater audience walking in front of the camera that gets blamed.

The other part of this that makes me shake my head is that the US movie and recording industries are largely owned by Japanese firms like Sony, right? Here is a novel idea. Instead of trying to project those insane laws and penalties on other countries, have the movie and recording industries sue the crap out of and shutdown these hooligans that make the CD and DVD burners, that make the MP3 players that people are putting the songs on, that make the PVRs that people use to record the TV Shows and PPV movies.

Wait....... they couldn't do that, as those hardware hooligans are Japanese firms like Sony! The same people that are selling the consumer the hardware, are then suing the consumer for using it!!!

Maybe someone should just spoof Prentice's network printer's IP on the web, as was recently discovered as a flaw in the Media Sentry monitoring strategy, and watch until the MAFIAA starts sending his printer takedown notices and threats. Then he will get a real sense of the stupidity of this bill. :wink:

[thecoalman]

The other part of this that makes me shake my head is that the US movie and recording industries are largely owned by Japanese firms like Sony, right? Here is a novel idea. Instead of trying to project those insane laws and penalties on other countries, have the movie and recording industries sue the crap out of and shutdown these hooligans that make the CD and DVD burners, that make the MP3 players that people are putting the songs on, that make the PVRs that people use to record the TV Shows and PPV movies.:

Actually if given the choice those devices wouldn't be in the hands of consumers if the MPAA and RIAA had anything to do with it, they have a long standing policy of fighting tooth and nail anything that has come along that can record. The only real success they have so far is getting a tax imposed on portable CD burners and the DAT format hence the reason you don't see them available. They simply ost too much for your average consumer. They tried to do the same thing with MP3 players and even the burners in computers.

As far as Sony goes its my understanding the media arm of Sony is often at loggerheads with the device arm. A pretty good example of that would be the restrictive nature of their earlier released MP3 type players. I almost bought one myself, very small at the time compared to other devices and had a lot of memory. After some research I quickly changed my mind. It used a a very restrictive format and was a pain in the ass to use, doomed to failure.

[Tom Saurus]

I think this legislation will become law after the MP's have their summer break. I cannot see the Opposition partys bringing down the government because of this. With the price of food and gas going up, I think there will be less people willing to buy DVDs when they are first released, because the money will be needed for necessities. If enough people are not willing to pay the current prices, then perhaps the studios will drop the prices. Personally I look through the bargain bins for DVDs. I look for ones I like that are $6.99 or less.

[offline]

Everybody,

please do not discuss specific content that you may have downloaded (warez)

Thanks.

Mod Offline

[DereX888]

Finally the paid liars (sound like lawyers in canadian english ) working for RIAA/MPAA cartels reached up north too...

I wonder will they now drop the recordable media levy (hidden tax on CD-Rs etc) they had there going for years?

...If enough people are not willing to pay the current prices, then perhaps the studios will drop the prices...

Wishful thinking.
People are sheep. They go with the flow. It is normal that rarely any sheeple tries to even question anything, much less change something.
In Canada you guys are *exporters* of oil, yet you still pay hefty gas prices to... your own governments without even blinking an eye (unless I'm wrong and oil reserves do not belong to state in Canada?) But that's just OT

Have a look at typical hollywood productions in the past 5 years.
Some 18 or 19 out of 20 movies made don't even recuperate their costs in theaters (if they even make it to theaters) *and* on video.
And they still pay 20+ million dollars to so-called stars of the 'big budget' productions (thus often the actual movies' budget - after the cost of the "stars" - is sometimes lower than those of "non-big budget" productions LOL). In the same 5 years period no studio exec had his/her multimillion wages and bonuses cut even by a buck
Its the same or worse in music industry, they still crank-out Britney Spears CDs even though very few people today won't barf upon mentioning her name.
Their business is dying, but their influence is still grand.
Making kids' parents pay hefty penalties for downloading a song or movie may be the only way to keep them afloat in the years to come, but first they need legal constituents anywhere possible before they can go on "antipiracy rampage" all over the world and collect the monies outside of USA. It's either that, or some compulsory "download tax" collected by ISPs - or maybe even both, everywhere...

Current limiting amount of data download per users by US and Canadian ISPs is probably related, because wether ISP's servers carry any load or not - the cost of infrastructure and maintenance still cost them almost the same, maybe just the electricity use difference is slightly lower (unless they just want to turn off half of the servers to save on electricity?). Its like phone lines - whether they are in use or not, they cost the same all the time, and charging users per data actually is no different as if phone companies would have switch to charging us per seconds for all local calls.
Perhaps RIAA/MPAA cartels have finally realized they can't ever win with p2p networks all over the web, but they can limit the amount of data people download, and possibly sue all the "downloaders" thanks to packet sniffing by ISPs. After all, almost all US major ISPs are cable tv providers, with ties and stakes in tv networks (or vice-versa), which are more or less owned by major studios (which are main MPAA members). It wouldn't even surprise me if they would have entirely belong to major RIAA/MPAA members through any obscure holdings and such. Conspiracy...