C-61: Copyright legislation **UPDATE**

[photon]

Originally Posted by Barnes

The This Week in Media podcast will be discussing ACTA in next weeks episode. They are really good a getting you up to speed on issues like this.

This weeks episode talks about Media Defender DDOSing Revision3's servers (which I am surprised no one talked about here).

Do you have a link?

[Traditional_Ale]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

If this bill passes, I'm going to get a camcorder and film myself going to Megatunes, buying a CD with copy protection, taking it home, cracking the DRM, and copying the songs to my iPod. I'll then post the video on Youtube with my name and address and dare the government to come after me.

If you're serious then I would love to help with this project. Anything to be a s*** disturber.

[kermitology]

I'd love it if I was stopped by customs and they found my band's album on my player and accused me of stealing it.

That would be hilarious to me.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by photon

Do you have a link?

Indeed:

http://www.pixelcorps.tv/this_week_in_media

or subscribe in iTunes.

This week in Tech had Jim Louderback (CEO of Rev3) on this week as well talking about it.

http://www.twit.tv/145

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Traditional_Ale

If you're serious then I would love to help with this project. Anything to be a s*** disturber.

I'd help too.

Nothing like progressive protesting. MarchHare is exactly right....the only reason this bill even has a chance of passing is because the average Canadian doesn't even understand what it is all about.

[Bobblehead]

More from Dr. Geist (http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3016/125/)

Sources indicate that staff from Conservative Government House Leader Peter Van Loan spent the morning calling MPs to ensure that they forward correspondence from constituents on copyright to Industry Minister Jim Prentice's office. MPs were advised that the call was designed to ensure that Canadians receive the Conservative media lines when they write to complain about the Canadian DMCA.

[photon]

http://www.boingboing.net/2008/06/11...stry-mi-1.html

Here it is, folks, at long last: Industry Canada Minister Jim Prentice is about to introduce his Canadian version of America's disastrous Digital Millennium Copyright Act tomorrow. In so doing, he is violating his own party's promise to seek public consultation on all treaty accession bills, he's ignoring the cries of rightsholders, industry, educators, artists, librarians, citizens' rights groups, legal scholars and pretty much everyone with a stake in this, except the US Trade Representative and the US Ambassador, who, apparently, have had ample opportunity to chat with the Minister and give him his marching orders.

[Bobblehead]

From a government who campaigned on an openness and accountability platform.

Politicians *spit*

[Azure]

Has anyone else gotten a reply back from their MP? Mine keeps ignoring me.

[Mccree]

Originally Posted by Azure

Has anyone else gotten a reply back from their MP? Mine keeps ignoring me.

Mine did too.

So if I understand this bill correctly.

BUY a CD and put on IPOD = Illegal
Buy a MP3 and put on a CD= Illegal.
Download free music = illegal (I am ok with this)
PVR a show = illegal
Copy a CD as a BACKUP to your Harddrive = illegal
IF customs thinks I have illegal downloads = they can stell my IPOD/laptop

Will the cost of blank CD's come down now?
Will they drop the "tax" on ipods and blank CD's?
Will they build more jails to house all the new inmates
Will they build new court houses to clear the back log of cases?

I suppose if they wanted to get younger people involved in politics this is one way to do that.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Mccree

I suppose if they wanted to get younger people involved in politics this is one way to do that.

What party?

Conservatives are bringing this bad legislation.
The Liberals had a similarly bad bill before they were brought down.
The NDP and I don't agree on too many issues.
The BQ don't need to be considered.
The Greens aren't really relevant.

[Bobblehead]

Bill C-61 was just tabled by Industry Minister Jim Prentice on the floor of the House of Commons (at 11:25 am). The government plans for second reading at the next sitting of the house, effectively removing the ability to send it to committee after first reading (and therefore be more open to change).

http://michaelgeist.ca/

[FanIn80]

^^ So does that mean they're trying to fasttrack it without allowing for refinements?

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

^^ So does that mean they're trying to fasttrack it without allowing for refinements?

Yes.

[Nehkara]

Government ready to drop copyright bomb

The government is ready to introduce controversial new copyright legislation that experts believe will introduce harsh new restrictions on downloading, copying songs to CDs and music players, unlocking cellphones and time-shifting of television shows.

The minister [Jim Prentice] was forced to retreat on introducing the bill in December after being hit with major public opposition. More than 20,000 people joined a protest group started on social networking site Facebook by University of Ottawa internet and e-commerce professor Michael Geist, an outspoken critic of the bill.

The opposition to the legislation has only grown since then, with the Facebook group counting more than 40,000 members now.

Canadian artists, librarians and students, as well as a business coalition made up of some of Canada's biggest companies — including Rogers Communications Inc. and Telus Corp., as well as Google Inc. and Yahoo Inc. — have expressed their opposition to any legislation that imposes harsh copyright restrictions.

The chorus of opposition was joined last week by a coalition of consumers groups — including Option consommateurs, Consumers Council of Canada, Public Interest Advocacy Centre (PIAC), the Canadian Internet Policy and Public Interest Clinic (CIPPIC) and Online Rights Canada (OnlineRights.ca) — who wrote a letter to the two ministers. The consumer groups expressed dismay that they had not been consulted on the pending legislation.

With such huge public opposition, I hope the opposition parties do the right thing and kill this bill.

[flamingreen]

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3025/125/

The digital lock provisions are worse than the DMCA. Yes - worse. The law creates a blanket prohibition on circumvention with very limited exceptions and creates a ban against distributing the tools that can be used to circumvent. While Prentice could have adopted a more balanced approach (as New Zealand and Canada's Bill C-60 did), the effect of these provisions will be to make Canadians infringers for a host of activities that are common today including watching out-of-region-coded DVDs, copying and pasting materials from a DRM'd book, or even unlocking a cellphone. The liability for picking the digital lock is up to $20,000 per infringement.

Ugh.

[fredr123]

From the new bill:

29.22 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce onto a medium or device a musical work embodied in a sound recording, a performer’s performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or a sound recording in which a musical work or a performer’s performance of a musical work is embodied, or any substantial part of such a work or other subject-matter, if the following conditions are met:



(a) the sound recording is not an infringing copy;



(b) the individual legally obtained the sound recording, otherwise than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns the medium or device on which it is reproduced;



(c) the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent a technolog- ical measure or cause one to be circumvented, within the meanings of the definitions “circumvent” and “technological measure” in section 41;



(d) the individual reproduces the sound recording no more than once for each device that the individual owns, whether the reproduction is made directly onto the device or is made onto a medium that is to be used with the device;



(e) the individual does not give the reproduction away; and



(f) the reproduction is used only for private purposes.

Paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) are the biggies for me. There was no distinction before in the private copying exemption in our current legislation between legal and illegal sources. The new section says you have to not only legally obtain the sound recording but it can't be rented or borrowed either. No more borrowing CDs from the local library. And if you in any way circumvent DRM or similar digital "locks" you clearly run amok of our new copyright laws.

[fredr123]

Regarding PVRs and similar devices:

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 watching it later, if the following conditions are met:



(a) the individual receives the program legally;



(b) the individual, in order to record the program, did not illegally circumvent a technological measure or cause one to be illegally circumvented, within the meanings of the definitions “circumvent” and “technological measure” in section 41;



(c) the individual makes no more than one recording of the program;



(d) the individual keeps the recording no longer than necessary in order to listen to or watch the program at a more convenient time;



(e) the individual does not give the recording away; and



(f) the recording is used only for private purposes.

So you can only keep the recording for as long as necessary to conveniently watch the program later. What if you want to conveniently watch it a dozen times? Maybe relive that great goal over and over again for weeks/months/years to come? Is that permitted?

And there's the familiar anti-circumvention provisions...

[FanIn80]

Just so we're clear, I don't care about tougher laws that make it harder to steal someone else's work. I'm not interested in protecting people that download un-paid-for music off the internet. (Edit: I'm also not interested in prosecuting those same people. My point is that taking away someone's "right" to piracy is not something that concerns me.)

The only aspects of this law that concern me are the ones that focus on what my rights are as someone who purchases a CD and rips it for my own private listening (extend that, of course to use of a PVR for recording shows to watch later, etc).

[Bobblehead]

This is enough to sway from not liking any federal party, to willing to actively campaign against the CPC.