|
Copyright bill makes it easier to target illegal file sharing & unlocking cellphone
|
View this Thread in Original format
| E2EK1EL |
Copyright bill makes it easier to target illegal file sharing & unlocking cellphone
(before the contract ends)
Minister of Industry Tony Clement speaks during Question Period in the House of Commons on Parliament Hill in Ottawa May 31, 2010. Photographed by:
Blair Gable , ReutersMONTREAL — It will be easier for recording companies and film studios to go after those who share files illegally, if a new copyright law introduced Wednesday in the House of Commons is passed.
The new law would require Internet service providers to notify their users if they receive a notice that a copyright has been infringed. The ISPs would then be required to hold on to the personal information of the infringing member, and to turn it over to officials if a court orders them to do so.
Under the current law, ISPs only notify copyright infringers on a voluntary basis.
That is one of many sweeping changes introduced to the outdated law — last updated in 1997.
Among other changes, the law legitimizes activities that most Canadians already do, such as transferring music from a legally purchased CD to an MP3 player, or recording a television show, which goes against current copyright rules, universally seen as outdated.
The legislation, however, makes it illegal to circumvent digital locks, even for personal or educational purposes. This means that someone who backs up a DVD movie has likely committed an infringement, since most DVDs already contain digital locks. This also means altering a DVD bought in Europe, or one of five other regions, to enable it to be played on a North American DVD would also constitute a copyright infringement — a practice that is currently legal.
There is an exemption to the digital lock rule — someone who purchases a cellular phone may unlock it in order to switch service providers (from Rogers to Bell, for example) — assuming the user's contract with the cellular phone company has ended.
As well, the new bill also relaxes many of the copyright rules for educational purposes, as part of what's called a fair dealing clause. That allows people to make use of copyrighted works without requiring permission in certain circumstances. For example, it will allow teachers to use copyrighted materials as part of a lesson.
Penalties for consumers sharing files will also be eased.
The new law will distinguish between those who share files for commercial purposes, versus those who do it for personal purposes. Fines for personal file sharing are reduced, under the proposed law, while commercial copyright infringement fines remain the same.
This is the second time the Conservative government has introduced changes to the copyright law.
Bill C-61, introduced in 2008, died on the order paper when the government called an election.
The Conservative government said the new law strikes a balanced approach between consumers and copyright holders, but Michael Geist, a copyright expert at the University of Ottawa called it "regressive."
"Especially around the issue of digital locks," Geist said. "This was the No. 1 criticism of the bill two years ago."
Geist said under the proposed law, people would be able share books for educational purposes, but would not digital books, if they are protected by a digital lock.
jmagderthegazette.canwest.com
http://www.canada.com/mobile/iphone/news/national-news/Bill+makes+easier+target+illegal+file+sharing/3101769/story.html
Canada’s proposed Copyright Act amendments will make it illegal to break DRM
After weeks of leaks and speculation, Canada’s reigning Conservative government outlined its plans to amend the ageing Copyright Act. According to the outline, anyone convicted of bypassing the DRM of a given media format — even if legally purchased — will be subject to a fine of up to $5,000. But if the circumvention of DRM is done for profit, then the fine is raised to $1 million. Convicted downloaders of copyrighted materials will face significantly weaker penalties with a fine of $5,000, down from the present day maximum of $20,000. Canadians will also be allowed to use copyrighted materials to create mashup videos for sites such as YouTube, and the law books will finally acknowledge that commonplace activities such as recording TV, radio and internet broadcasts are okay. The same applies for backing media for personal use or archival purposes, but so long as DRM is not tampered with. Cellphone unlocking was not mentioned, although Heritage Minister Tony Clement said that it is currently legal to unlock phones so long as that phone is not currently under contract from a carrier. In an editorial co-autored with Heritage Minister James Moore published in The National Post on Wednesday, Clement argued that “Canada’s Copyright Act is more than 80 years old and has not been significantly modified for many years” and needs a serious overhaul in order to protect the interests of Canadians and the rights of content creators. The legislation is expected to be tabled in the House of Commons on Thursday.
http://www.boygeniusreport.com/2010/06/02/canadas-proposed-copyright-act-amendments-will-make-it-illegal-to-break-drm/ |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| its about time they updated the copyright laws....still don't think the penalties are even close to harsh enough for this crime. |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
its about time they updated the copyright laws....still don't think the penalties are even close to harsh enough for this crime. |
You do realise that this bill is only of benefit to corporate interests and that the last time they tried to table similar legislation several independent artist coalitions (with many of those on board also being dues-paying SOCAN members) petitioned against it? |
|
|
| ChemEnhanced |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
You do realise that this bill is only of benefit to corporate interests and that the last time they tried to table similar legislation several independent artist coalitions (with many of those on board also being dues-paying SOCAN members) petitioned against it? |
I think its great that it benefits the corporate interests....corporations are what make the world go around.
If you want your DVDs and your Music then pay for it.....anything that cuts down on this stuff being obtained without paying for it I am all for....hell there sould be a minimum 10 year prison sentence for each count. |
|
|
| jester |
lol wow
Guess I am going to be fined for watching American tv shows that aren't allowed in Canada.
:haha: :haha: :haha:
The cellphone thing is beyond hilarious. I am happy I buy unlocked phones online and have no contract with any cellphone providers in this country.
Honestly we win some and we lose some with Harper's government.
Its TOTALARIAN b.s this law.
If you can't record tv shows. Will they go after Bell and other service providers for selling PVRs? Sue BestBuy or Future Shop for selling DVD players with HDD? Go after GlobalTV for showing reruns on their tv shows online (might be exempt because they are the content providers) |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
corporations are what make the world go around |
I really hope you're just taking the piss on this. |
|
|
| DigiNut |
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
You do realise that this bill is only of benefit to corporate interests |
Oh noes, it's the big bad corporate interests!
Who the did you think it was going to benefit? Corporations are the entities who actually sell the that people are stealing. |
|
|
| Jennifer_P_ |
| quote: | Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
I think its great that it benefits the corporate interests....corporations are what make the world go around.
|
| quote: | Originally posted by PivotTechno
|
agreed.
meh - Harper's gotta make big business happy I guess.... |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
Update from Michael Geist's blog:
The Canadian Copyright Bill: Flawed But Fixable
This afternoon, the government introduced the Copyright Modernization Act (or Bill C-32), the long-awaited copyright reform bill [the bill is not yet online, but I attended the media lockup in Montreal]. It is nearly two years since C-61 was introduced and nearly a year since the national copyright consultation, yet discouragingly some things have not changed. As I reported several weeks ago, Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore won the internal fight over Industry Minister Tony Clement for a repeat of C-61's digital lock provisions and against a flexible fair dealing approach and today's bill reflects those policy victories.
However, over the past month, Clement made steady in-roads in trying to restore some balance in the bill and achieved some wins. The bill contains some important extensions of fair dealing, including new exceptions for parody, satire, and (most notably) education. It also contains more sensible time shifting and format shifting provisions that still feature restrictions (they do not apply where there is a digital lock) but are more technology neutral than the C-61 model. There is also a "YouTube exception" that grants Canadians the right to create remixed user generated content for non-commercial purposes under certain circumstances. While still not as good as a flexible fair dealing provision, the compromise is a pretty good one. Throw in notice-and-notice for Internet providers, backup copying, and some important changes to the statutory damages regime for non-commercial infringement and there are some provisions worth fighting to keep.
Yet all the attempts at balance come with a giant caveat that has huge implications for millions of Canadians. The foundational principle of the new bill remains that anytime a digital lock is used - whether on books, movies, music, or electronic devices - the lock trumps virtually all other rights. In other words, in the battle between two sets of property rights - those of the intellectual property rights holder and those of the consumer who has purchased the tangible or intangible property - the IP rights holder always wins. This represents market intervention for a particular business model by a government supposedly committed to the free market and it means that the existing fair dealing rights (including research, private study, news reporting, criticism, and review) and the proposed new rights (parody, satire, education, time shifting, format shifting, backup copies) all cease to function effectively so long as the rights holder places a digital lock on their content or device. Moreover, the digital lock approach is not limited to fair dealing - library provisions again include a requirement for digital copies to self-destruct within five days and distance learning teaching provisions require the destruction of materials 30 days after the course concludes.
The digital lock provisions are by far the biggest flaw in the bill, rules that some will argue renders it beyond repair. I disagree. The flaw must be fixed, but there is much to support within the proposal. There will undoubtedly be attacks on the fair dealing reforms and pressure to repeal them, along with the U.S. and the copyright lobby demanding that their digital lock provisions be left untouched. If Canadians stay quiet, both are distinct possibilities. If they speak out, perhaps the bill can be fixed. I'll post an update of my 30 things you can do shortly. In the meantime, I'm relaunching Speak Out on Copyright to focus on this bill and encouraging Canadians to join the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group (to get active) and the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook Page (to stay updated). |
|
|
| PivotTechno |
His post beneath that one is even more telling as to where all this is stemming from (as if it wasn't known already):
| quote: | David Akin has pointed to a new paper from Blayne Haggart, a doctoral student at Carleton who is focusing on copyright policy in Canada, the U.S., and Mexico. The paper, being presented this week in Montreal, includes some interesting analysis of digital copyright reforms in each country. Given today's introduction of the copyright reform bill, of particular significance are comments Haggart obtained from Michele Austin, who served as Maxime Bernier's chief of staff when he was Industry Minister.
According to Austin, the decision to introduce U.S.-style DMCA rules in Canada in 2007 was strictly a political decision, the result of pressure from the Prime Minister's Office desire to meet U.S. demands. She states "the Prime Minister's Office's position was, move quickly, satisfy the United States." When Bernier and then-Canadian Heritage Minister Bev Oda protested, the PMO replied "we don't care what you do, as long as the U.S. is satisfied." |
|
|
|
| I_Am_Vince |
| Wow I'm surprised there's no changes to the Life + 50 rule for Canada. I know U.S. is mad that ours isn't as high as theirs (Life+80) |
|
|
|
|
