Hacker News Reader

Comment by extension | Hacker News Reader

Is there a better source of analysis on this bill? The summary posted here does not seem to be nearly as bad as this blog is making it out to be:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/41/1/...

For example, phone unlocking is explicitly permitted, according to that summary and contrary to the blog.

The linked Michael Geist post says that lobby groups are pushing for scarier things, but not that they are already in the bill.

View on HN

One problem with this bill is that recording, lets say on your PVR, is not allowed for a long time. Here is the relevant section:

"29.23 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to fix a communication signal, to reproduce a work or sound recording that is being broadcast or to fix or reproduce a performer’s performance that is being broadcast, in order to record a program for the purpose of listening to or viewing it later, if:

(d) the individual keeps the recording no longer than is reasonably necessary in order to listen to or view the program at a more convenient time;" http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Doc...

So now, if you have two TVs and PVRs, you can only record you show on one of them. Secondly, as soon as you watch it, you have to delete it.

Another problem is that while it allows backup copies, recordings etc., if there is a protection method on the media to prevent this, it becomes illegal to to backup or record the item. I can guarantee that companies will start putting DRM, just to take advantage of this clause, effectively making it as though the clauses that allows backups do not exist at all.

Here is the bill in full: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Doc...

Ok, I take it back. There are anti-circumvention exceptions to all the new fair use rights, effectively inverting them. So the bill says "you have the right to use copyright works in such and such a way, unless the rights holder says otherwise", which is obviously the same as not having those rights at all.

Don't think the blog said phone unlocking is not permitted.

But really, what's going on is Canadians having absolutely no confidence in our government not caving into pressure with regards to copyright laws, both from entertainment industry (foreign and domestic), as well as the American government. And we do so cause we have absolutely no reason to have confidence in them. So when we hear that industry wants X, Y and Z added, and oh ho, there happens to be some rumblings of American government pressure, we just assume the worse (and I really think we should), and flip our shit.

The C-11 as is really just the same copyright reform act that died the last few times as elections rolled around. As is, it contains some needed reform, and overall, if not for the absolutely forbidden nature of removing DRM, wouldn't actually be that bad.

But we're easily startled now. And so it is.

> Don't think the blog said phone unlocking is not permitted.

> Hey, do you want to be able to unlock your $500 smartphone and take it to a provider less dedicated to violating your wallet? That won’t be allowed either.

So unless the author means that the joint action of unlocking and then taking it to another provider is prohibited, or just taking it to another provider is prohibited, but the author threw in unlocking because it is likely to accompany it, I think the blog is stating that unlocking a smartphone is not permitted.

I'm a Canadian too, and even reading Michael Geist's blog, this bill doesn't sound scary.

Canada has always had more liberal copyright laws than the US, and I expect that to continue. You don't hear about a Canadian being sued for $20 million for downloading a few songs on Limewire.

The success of the SOPA protests is both a blessing and a curse. I'm starting to notice a trend. Every day/week we're going to have to read about something being "the next SOPA".

"Canada has always had more liberal copyright laws than the US, and I expect that to continue. You don't hear about a Canadian being sued for $20 million for downloading a few songs on Limewire."

Your'e far more trusting of this current government then I. It would fit into their message on "getting tough on crime" to have more restrictions on technology, to the point of having many actions that we take for granted now being outlawed.

I get the tagging of every little thing being "the next SOPA" is diluting the message, and agree with your point, but from the current governments track record, I wouldn't trust them on this line of legislation as far as I could throw them. Especially as this isn't the first time they've tried to pass such legislation.

I always thought that Canada's fair dealing was more restrictive than America's fair use.

Fair use does not exist in Canadian law.

My favourite podcast to keep up on the latest developments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_Engine_(radio_show)

You don't have to assume anything. The Act is publicly accessible. You can read it yourself.

There is even a very honest description of this history and interests of the Act here:

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/41/1/...

The problem with having a knee-jerk reaction without understanding why is that there are real problems with the Act.

All the exceptions (backup, time-shifting, format shifting) are excluded if the copyright holder puts a digital lock on the content.

Also, there is a change to outlaw services that are designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement, which will be expensive for the industries to sort out in the courts.

If you spoke to your MP and Senator with specific and reasonable concerns and suggestions, you're more likely to affect change.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com