Bill C-11 could bring SOPA-like piracy laws to Canada
ca.news.yahoo.com
ca.news.yahoo.com
Yes, the digital locks portions of the bill could use some reworking-- but as mentioned, the enforceability of the law as its codified now is questionable, so I wonder how big of a deal it would actually be for the law to be passed as is. Remember, as pointed out, use of VCRs is also technically illegal, but you don't see any enforcement of that. The issue surrounding digital locks may very well have the same practical effect. We should certainly try to get these provisions changed before they are codified, but IMO it's not really the end of the world.
Yes, there is going to be a lot of push from powerful lobbyists to get "SOPA-like" provisions into the bill. However that is a reason to remain vigilant, not a reason to pre-emptively black out the internet again. As it stands, those additions have yet to be added to the bill, so right now, the lobbying power hasn't done very much. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not the type to start blaming people for things that haven't happened yet. I'm going to watch and wait until there is something reminiscent of SOPA in this bill, which may or may not happen.
FYI for those who are just jumping on the bus because SOPA is in the title of this article, please read a bit on the issue before injecting your opinion or outrage. Michael Geist is a good and well respected source on this issue. He's come out (more or less) in favour of the bill, minus his open objections to the digital locks portions, which I pointed out above. However, his general approval should say something about the bill-- Geist probably knows a lot more about copyright law in Canada than anyone here does. His comments regarding C-32 (now C-11) can be found in this rather old posting: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5316/125/
Regarding digital locks, in an earlier version of the bill called C-60, they had the completely reasonable position that circumventing digital locks would only infringe if the circumvention was done to further an infringing act. If you broke the lock to exercise your fair dealing rights, that would not be infringement.
The WIPO lawyers argued that wasn't the intention of the Internet treaties we signed, but I think that's bullshit. A marketing campaign after the fact about the possible intention of the law doesn't matter; only what's written and how it would be reasonably interpreted to achieve its stated aims.
The WIPO treaties explicitly allow for fair dealing and fair use restrictions on the rights granted to copyright holders. Further, they only demand that digital locks are protected to enforce rights of the copyright holders.
However, clearly the rights of the copyright holders are limited by the fair dealing provisions (1), and therefore the digital locks don't need to be enforced where they prevent non-infringing uses.
(1) If you don't get this, it's important to remember that rights and freedoms are never unlimited. We have freedom of expression in Canada, but that is reasonably limited when that expression causes harm to society, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or hate speech or even reporting election results early. The full right isn't the one paragraph that grants "freedom of expression" in the Charter, but that paragraph limited by the reasonable restrictions around it.
Similarly, copyrights are not the simple paragraph descriptions like "right to control copies", but the full right as limited by fair dealing.
Therefore, when WIPO only asks for enforcement of digital locks that protect the rights of copyright holders, that requirement is limited by fair dealing.
Also, Canada really needs an updated copyright law. Right now VCRs are still illegal.
Link? Whatever kind of illegal they might be, it's not the kind that stops stores from selling hem or people from buying them. I'm highly suspicious of this claim.
The first relevant link Google found is this: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1427/195/
To quote from that article, "[...] address this issue as well, either by expanding the fair dealing user right such that home television taping would be permitted ...". It wouldn't be necessary to "address this issue" if it were already permitted.
Again, the article says nothing of the sort. He's arguing in favor of explicitly permitting certain kinds of recording, which the law currently does not. Nor, to my knowledge, and certainly not as far as the article claims, does it forbid it. It is currently unregulated, which means you're free to do it, and others are free to try and stop you.
a broadcaster has a copyright in the communication signals that it broadcasts, consisting of the sole right to do the following in relation to the communication signal or any substantial part thereof: (a) to fix it,
We need an updated copyright law that isn't broken. The blanket ban on breaking digital locks in C-11 (no exceptions for fair dealing, privacy, personal use etc.) is fundamentally wrong and would likely not survive a constitutional challenge, but the government flatly refuses to reconsider it.
* Content owners voluntarily making their content available (e.g. the 'permission culture' among academics);
* Content available in multiple formats, some of which may not have digital locks;
* The ability for government apparatus to regulate exceptions on the fly; and
* The government's insistence that it would be highly unlikely for a digital lock violation based on fair dealing to result in damages.
Essentially, the government's position is: trust us! I don't.
Other countries have passed laws that put them into compliance with WIPO and still maintain reasonable exceptions to break digital locks for valid reasons of fair use/dealing, privacy and so on.
Note: I've seen legal arguments suggesting that C-11 forbids breaking digital locks that function as access controls but does not forbid breaking digital locks that function as copy controls. In other words, it's illegal to hack a paywall so that you can read protected content, but it's not illegal to enable right-clicking to copy content to which you have legal access.
IANAL but I can already see a problem with this: if the same digital lock serves both functions, it is impossible to carry out the latter without also violating the former.
Whereas the DMCA mandates a notice-and-takedown scheme, Canadian legislatures have preferred to adopt a "Canadian" solution of notice-and-notice, which means that ISPs and hosting providers have more immunity by giving notice to their customers.
Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword. Although service providers have greater immunity, thus less threatening to the structure of the internet, consumers are more likely to be given up by said providers, because there are less incentives for companies to defend such actions (since it requires far less costs and actions on their part to give notice rather than to take down infringing material).
This affects us all.
The only hope we have is to protest this law publicly to the point where they alter it further (C-11 is already and altered version of the much more draconian C-31).
It's was obvious that as soon as a majority government would come to power this bill would go through (Regardless of which party was the majority in my view)
Any efforts of writing or contacting him on this topic (or any) are gleefully ignored.
What really frustrates me is that the Conservatives were voted in thanks the rural farmers and retirees who actually got out to vote in my province. Here in my central Alberta riding in 2011, the CONs got 75% of the vote, but only 30% voted!
And thanks to this, the entire country is forced to follow our PM's indelible path. Even though the majority of people didn't actually vote for him.
Now Canadians are embarrassed on the world stage by C-11, and stuff like this:
What's with this new attitude of hating parliament if it's not your party with a majority?
Indeed, and prior to Mulroney in 1984 the only true majorities were Diefenbaker in 1958, once during each world war (both of which were distinctly atypical elections), and 1904 and earlier.
A big part of it was that they won the immigrant/new Canadian vote in Ontario. The values of these groups are much more in line with the Cons than the Libs. Peoples from the Eastern Bloc would never vote NDP because they've experienced similar politics already.
http://www.sorryworld.ca/ assumes that all those things listed are "good things" or that they make Canada "awesome". That' a matter of opinion, and I disagree with a lot of those things. I'm not proud that cats and dogs get better medical treatment here than humans. :(
Either way, C-11 needs to die.
Other parties don't even put in any major campaign resources out here anymore: The Liberal name has been tarnished ever since the NEP/Trudeau, and the NDP spend what little cash they have in ridings they'll actually have a chance.
I agree with you about http://www.sorryworld.ca, not every point embodies everyone's values, although you have to admit the world's perception of Canada has degraded drastically since the Conservatives have come to (true) power.
Bill C-11... the oil-sands PR mess.. and now banning trans-genders from flying[1]... The Conservatives are just cashing in their blank cheque.
[1] http://chrismilloy.ca/2012/01/transgender-people-are-complet...
Here is the Parliamentary summary of this bill's history, which is very well written. It should give you greater faith in our system.
http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/41/1/...
I should also point out that my original comment indicating that the precursor to C-11 was C-31 was incorrect. The correct bill is C-32.
Anyone else having this issue? (Running Chromium on Ubuntu 11.04)
Note: ca.news.yahoo.com and news.yahoo.ca by themselves are also redirecting me to that URL.