Author Topic: Just when you thought it was safe to download...  (Read 746 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Mordac

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
    • View Profile
Just when you thought it was safe to download...
« on: October 18, 2011, 01:05:29 AM »
On September 29th, 2011 the recently re-elected Conservative Government reintroduced the Copyright Modernization Act, Bill C-11 (previously Bill C-32). Given that the Conservatives now hold the majority of seats in the House, the quick and easy passage of this ‘Made In America’ legislation is no more a matter of ‘will it pass’ but a matter of ‘just how quickly will it pass.’

Heritage Minister James Moore has indicated that once Bill C-11 reaches the committee stage, witnesses who appeared before the old C-32 committee will not be heard from again. This despite that fact that there is a new Industry Minister on this portfolio. This move coupled by Moore’s confirmation that the committee will be meeting for extended hours each week and the fact that appeasing the United States has emerged as a bigger Conservative priority than making good on their promise to scrap the wasteful long gun registry.
Although Bill C-11 appears to be more flexible than the previous attempts at copyright reform, this bill is flawed to its core by the inclusion of strict, anti-circumvention provisions. Understandably, Canadians are concerned at how easily their rights are trumped by the overriding protection for digital locks included in this legislation and it is to this effect that the CCER has updated its online letter writing tool. It is essential that Canadians speak out about their concerns with Bill C-11 while it is still open to amendments.

There is more there...

This one is nearly identical to the one that died on the floor when the election was called. It includes things like making the download of some electronic format educational materials illegal...even from universities and other scholastic operations. Want to record that movie onto your PVR and watch it later? Not if the broadcaster flags it, you won't. You'll record only what they allow you to. Kind of defeats the purpose of a PVR, doesn't it?

Anyway, this is going to pass. With a majority gov't, it can't not. Expect this to be law by the end of the year. Why the rush? Who's certainly odd. How odd? Very. More here on just how odd:

The federal government wants to push through it’s “copyright modernization act” before the end of the year, but one critic asks what the rush is all about, especially when there are five copyright cases scheduled to come before the Supreme Court of Canada in the first week of December that could be related to current aspects of the act.

“There will be five cases heard in two days on Dec. 6 and 7, which is absolutely unprecedented in Canada,” says Howard Knopf, counsel with Ottawa’s Moffat & Co./Macera & Jarzyna LLP.

Especially interesting is the Wikileaks revelations that our venerable former Minister of Industry, Maxime Bernier, offered to 'leak' the bill to the USA prior to being tabled. Nice of the US to be dicating what Canadian copyright law should be, isn't it? This law will be about as Canadian as the New York Yankees.

Here's the official version of the bill:
Here's an easier to read version of the bill:
And with the amendments consolidated:
« Last Edit: October 18, 2011, 01:18:18 AM by Mordac »

Offline BlueWhiteBlood

  • Veteran
  • ****
  • Posts: 4135
  • Gender: Male
    • View Profile
Re: Just when you thought it was safe to download...
« Reply #1 on: October 18, 2011, 05:20:11 AM »
I'd say that people need to jam up their representatives phones lines on this, or this will be nothing compared to the amerikan like legislation that will be rammed through in the future. If you don't tell them your pissed, they'll assume it's okay to do it weekly.

Offline Mordac

  • Rookie
  • ***
  • Posts: 291
    • View Profile
Re: Just when you thought it was safe to download...
« Reply #2 on: October 18, 2011, 12:47:41 PM »
I'd say that people need to jam up their representatives phones lines on this, or this will be nothing compared to the amerikan like legislation that will be rammed through in the future. If you don't tell them your pissed, they'll assume it's okay to do it weekly.

It's a majority conservative gov't, run by that jackass harper. They'll do it anyway.

Offline hockeyfan1

  • All Star
  • *****
  • Posts: 7710
  • Gender: Female
  • #TorontoStrong
    • View Profile
Re: Just when you thought it was safe to download...
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2011, 06:47:27 AM »

                      Non-owner digital locks

Non-owner locks on technology are based on the idea that the manufacturer of the device, not the owner, should control who has keys to the locks they have applied. One interpretation of anti-circumvention legislation promoted by some special interest groups is to suggest that it should be illegal for the owner of the device to remove this non-owner lock and apply their own.

This is clearly backwards: what should be illegal is for someone other than the owner to apply a lock and then not pass the keys to the owner when the property is sold. To do otherwise is to ignore hundreds of years of precedent in how property works not only in the legal community, but also how the general public understands the concept of property rights.

The general public understands the concept of rental, where someone other than the owner makes use of the property while the owner retains ownership rights. Along with property law we have a whole body of law that sets out the rights and responsibilities of both the owner and the renter, and this model is generally understood by the general public at large.

It is unreasonable for DRM proponents and apologists to expect the general public or people in the legal profession to understand this brand new type of relationship that is neither ownership nor rental. While I avoid the "purchase" of products that have non-owner locks on them, I think it is obvious that this has little to no impact on the market as a whole. It would also have little to no impact on the radical changes being proposed to our legal system when it comes to property law.

This departure from property law is unnecessary as the long established rental arrangement provides all the flexibility needed for the legitimate business model options being contemplated by the content and technology industries. What we should be doing is strengthening the legal protection for owner applied digital locks, including in rental situations where it should clearly be illegal for a renter to circumvent a lock on technology which they do not own. protection of owner-locks can be used to protect the interests of copyright holders, they should be protected regardless of whether there was a copyright infringement involved in the circumvention of these owner locks.


                        Non-competitve locks on content

all the evidence I've seen suggests that these locks are taking money out of the pockets of creators. These locks make the content less valuable to audiences, and thus fewer are willing to pay. These locks also threaten artistic control as well as business model control. I believe that in order to protect the rights and interests of copyright holders that this new right should not be added to Canadian Copyright, even if in the short term some copyright holders appear to be asking for it.

Telling me that it is my choice to not consume content only provided on brands of devices I do not own is backwards. This is like telling someone that they are free to vote for anyone they want, but that the only legal options are from the Communist party. That is not a choice, but the removal of choice.

This reduction in the value and marketability of content is one way that these anti-interoperability locks take money out of the pockets of copyright holders. While I believe this costs copyright holders more than infringement does, I don't consider it the greatest threat.

traditional business model of commercial television. The model is to sell eyeballs (viewers) to advertisers. The product isn't copyrighted works being sold to viewers, but viewers being sold to advertisers. The supplier of the most relevant service is the television network, cable and satellite companies. Copyrighted works are a business expense to these suppliers, used to grow the size of their product (viewers) to their customers (advertisers).

Anti-competitive locks on content threaten to cause a transformation of traditional retail content distribution from where the product is the content and the customer is the audience, to one where the product is the audience and the customer is the copyright holder. If a small number of locked platform providers are able to dominate the distribution networks for copyrighted works it will then be these platform providers, not copyright holders, that are in control of the business models. Copyright holders will have to give in to the demands of the platform providers if they wish to receive any remuneration at all. should also be obvious that it is the platform providers that determine pricing and other aspects of the economic interests of copyright holders, not the copyright holder.

...don't think that individual artists or individual consumers will have any weight in protecting their rights and interests if a large proportion of fellow artists and/or consumers remain unaware of the threats.

...many creators have been convinced that "more copyright" is good for them, and that a new brand-dictating right will help them. I believe that by the time they realize the threat, if ever, the damage to creative industries will be massive.

Re: Just when you thought it was safe to download...
« Reply #3 on: October 26, 2011, 06:47:27 AM »