Canadian Government: Copyright bill to clamp down on digital lock-pickers

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by howyoudoin

This is what happens when technologically uninformed politicians frame laws on subjects they do not comprehend.

The government gets all shifty when they try to explain some of these DMCA-like and snooping laws. I suspect that they are under pressure from the USA to enact these, and that there are threats of hampering flow at the border if they refuse. All parties have been dragging their feet during the minority government days (the Liberals had also tabled and stalled similar legislation back in the day), but it looks like that excuse is gone.

I saw Harper say on TV that people who don't like it should just not buy stuff with DRM on it. There are many ways to read that statement, and I got the impression that he was aware of that.

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by rkomar

I saw Harper say on TV that people who don't like it should just not buy stuff with DRM on it. There are many ways to read that statement, and I got the impression that he was aware of that.

Maybe I'm reading this legislation the wrong way, but it looks like if I remove DRM from my personal files, I won't be in compliance with the law, but no criminal charges can be filed nor statutory damages awarded. Under Canadian civil law, to receive further damages, they would have to prove harm, and no court would be likely to decide in their favour. There are no further provisions to stop me from doing so.

Accordingly, I see no reason to stop removing the DRM from content I legally own.

[6charlong]

As a US American with no standing in this debate, I have to notice that they seem to have passed an unenforceable law. It seems to say you can do something and in the next breath says that you cannot do the thing the law just allowed. How can a law court make heads or tails of something like that?

[Wasgo]

Originally Posted by 6charlong

As a US American with no standing in this debate, I have to notice that they seem to have passed an unenforceable law. It seems to say you can do something and in the next breath says that you cannot do the thing the law just allowed. How can a law court make heads or tails of something like that?

It's not unenforceable, it just won't be enforced against people using it for personal use. If a company gets caught with pirated DVDs that they manufacturer, they can be hit with statutory damages. So can people that make or import tools that can remove DRM.

[carpetmojo]

This really does seem to be a very badly thought out piece of legislation - almost like they weren't quite sure what they wanted to stop.......

[Xanthe]

Originally Posted by Barcey

My real problem with laws like this is that it builds a contempt for law.

That is very true. When it is clear that the lawmakers don't understand the issue they are writing laws for, and when common sense and common usage would dictate behavior other than what the law is trying to mandate, people who normally consider themselves law-abiding will ignore that particular law.

[sabredog]

I wold not doubt for one minute that vested interests are behind this. Whispered promises of "donations" to election campaigns and party coffers.

[rkomar]

Originally Posted by sabredog

I wold not doubt for one minute that vested interests are behind this. Whispered promises of "donations" to election campaigns and party coffers.

That's not as big a problem in Canada as it is in the USA. Maximum donations are quite small (about a thousand bucks), and can only be made by individuals. See, for example: http://canadaonline.about.com/od/fed...tributions.htm. However, that's not to say that plain old-fashioned bribery never happens.

In this case, the vested interests are probably getting the US government to apply the screws.

[speakingtohe]

I think it is the desire to get in the news in any manner. I doubt that Canadian Parlimentary Representatives are giving into massive pressure from media or bribes or hopes of making a noticeable difference in the intellectual property rights arena.

After all why would anyone bribe a Canadian official when the bucks could be spent better elsewhere.

It is uninformed self importance in action

Helen
PS
And yes I am Canadian

[sabredog]

I think you underestimate the impact of powerful special interest groups

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by rkomar

In this case, the vested interests are probably getting the US government to apply the screws.

Good luck with that there.

Helen

[speakingtohe]

Originally Posted by sabredog

I think you underestimate the impact of powerful special interest groups

Everybody in Canada is a special interest group.

I understand where you are coming from, and Canada could be taken over by the US if they feel the urge.

I think the special interest groups are more powerful in Australia although I could be wrong. Prices for pbooks never mind ebooks are unpleasantly high in Australia AFAIK as well as prices in many other areas.

Canadian pragmatism is possibly founded on the premise that most Americans don't want to admit we don't all live in igloos and certainly don't want to deal with the Quebecois.

Helen

[sabredog]

Not quite. Book and ebook prices are set by greedy publishing companies such as Hatchette and Random House and their local distributor middlemen.

Hatchette is Australian for rip-off

AFACT, a special interest entertainment industry front end controlled by MPAA and the US TV industry is locked in combat with iiNET, they lost the civil suit and have kept appealing until they have reached the highest court in Australia.

Word is that they are going to lose that as well. Especially as some damning cables exposed by Wikileaks have surfaced, outlining the whole sordid affair was a MPAA test case picking on a soft target (that target proved a far tougher nut to crack)

[speakingtohe]

I looked at a few articles on the subject. Australia is worse off than Canada in terms of price of many goods and services IMO. http://www.numbeo.com/cost-of-living...ountry2=Canada

The MPAA seems to be using politicians in several countries to pressure ISPs etc. Eventually one would hope that the politicians will realize that the taxes paid by ISPs are more significant than the money that may or may not being lost by the MPAA.

And the cost of policing their users in terms of manhours is high enough. Why would an ISP implement a policy that will cost them money and a possible loss of many of their existing customers?

[KevinH]

Hi,

I think you missed the point. The digitial lock provisions trump all other uses.

Without changes to the digital lock provisions, all of the other good things in the bill "ie. fair dealing" become worthless. All anyone need add is some minor obfuscation or encryption, call it a DRM system, and now you no longer have any fair dealing uses. Sad really. Since we know DRM does not stop actual pirates, then all Harper's government is doing is kowtowing to big business interests that want to lock you in to their platform and effectively abolish all fair dealing uses.

-1

Originally Posted by Wasgo

You may not like his policies (I know I don't), but it doesn't add anything to a debate by calling Mr. Harper a moron. The man has a Masters of Economics degree and successfully became Canada's Prime Minister. Any time you use inflammatory language like that, the debate turns into whether or not the use of insulting language is justified, rather than the issue at hand.

While I'm disappointed in the inclusion of the circumvention legislation, the overall bill seems to be quite reasonable.