C-61: Copyright legislation **UPDATE**

[FFR]

^^ I completely agree. I have voted PC for most elections, however, they have really turned me off with this bill. And for more reasons than the sheer ridiculousness of it. The PC party touted that for all major bills they will consult the public. This bill has been developed and attempted to be passed in secrecy. The PC is supposed to be the government that stays out of people's lives. Well, now they're telling me what I can and can't do with property that I paid for and now legally own.

The only problem is...if the bill passes, that means the other parties let it pass. Which means, that by default, they supported it also. So now who do I vote for?

[photon]

New Zealand

[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.

Ok, since this bill was read in Parliament this morning, and it did contain the anti-circumvention provision as was speculated, I'm going to go ahead and make this video.

If anyone is interested in assisting, it would be much appreciated. Mainly, I'll need someone with a DV cam to record the following:

1. A sequence of me walking into Megatunes on 17th Ave SW and purchasing a DRM-crippled CD with cash.

2. A close up shot of the Megatunes receipt, showing I paid in full for the CD in question.

3. A sequence of me trying to rip the CD to my computer using iTunes, which will fail because of the DRM.

4. A sequence of me employing circumvention software (EAC + LAME or whatever) to break the DRM, rip the CD to MP3 format, then upload it to my iPod.

I'd like to film this either tonight or tomorrow because I'm leaving town for ten days on Saturday. If anyone has a DV cam and lives near the Beltline area (or can travel there after work tonight) and you'd like to assist with this project (I can either list you in the credits or you can remain anonymous -- whichever you prefer), please send me a PM.

[Barnes]

I received this email a few minutes ago and sent my response right away. Me in Blue

Thank you for taking the time to respond to my email. Your canned spin is appreciated. You have gone to great lengths to avoid speaking about the substance of Bill C61.

The Conservative Party should be ashamed for playing patsy to big, American business and completely ignoring the views of such a wide array of Canadian voices.

See my comments to your spin below in blue.

On Thu, Jun 12, 2008 at 11:09 AM, Ministers Prentice and Verner <Minister.Industry@ic.gc.ca> wrote:

The Government of Canada has introduced Bill C-61, An Act to Amend the Copyright Act. The proposed legislation is a made-in-Canada approach that balances the needs of Canadian consumers and copyright owners, promoting culture, innovation and competition in the digital age. What does Bill C-61 mean to Canadians?
Specifically, it includes measures that would:

• expressly allow you to record TV shows for later viewing; copy legally purchased music onto other devices, such as MP3 players or cell phones; make back-up copies of legally purchased books, newspapers, videocassettes and photographs onto devices you own; and limit the "statutory damages" a court could award for all private use copyright infringements;

Unless the content providers use some method of digital rights management (which they do and will continue to do so thanks to this Bill) making all above mentioned illegal and subject to your generous "statutory damages".

• implement new rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy, as well as stronger legal remedies to address Internet piracy;

As an Internet based content creator myself, this act does absolutely nothing for me. That is no exaggeration. I will continue to make my content available under the Creative Commons License because they actually understand the 'online economy' and have already 'implemented rights and protections for copyright holders, tailored to the Internet, to encourage participation in the online economy'.

• clarify the roles and responsibilities of Internet Service Providers related to the copyright content flowing over their network facilities; and

Even though said ISPs have indicated that they want no part of this. They don't want to be forced into becoming content publishers.

• provide photographers with the same rights as other creators.

This makes no sense. They already enjoy the same rights.

What Bill C-61 does not do:

• it would not empower border agents to seize your iPod or laptop at border crossings, contrary to recent public speculation

No, Bill C-61 does not do that. However, ACTA which this office is secretly negotiating may very well do that. Again, zero public consultation.

What this Bill is not:

• it is not a mirror image of U.S. copyright laws. Our Bill is made-in-Canada with different exceptions for educators, consumers and others and brings us into line with more than 60 countries including Japan, France, Germany and Australia

It's worse than the U.S. DMCA. It's worse than the countries specified (I thought this was a made in Canada solution). At least those countries allow and in some cases have promoted through legislation the unlocking of cell phones. A subject that is conspicuously missing from this email.

Bill C-61 was introduced in the Commons on June 12, 2008 by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner. For more information, please visit the Copyright Reform Process website at www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.nsf/en/home
Thank you for sharing your views on this important matter.

Thank you for ignoring the views of myself, rightsholders, industry, educators, artists, librarians, citizens' rights groups, legal scholars, other Members of Parliament.

The Honourable Jim Prentice, P.C., Q.C., M.P.
Minister of Industry
The Honourable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P.
Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women
and Official Languages and Minister for
La Francophonie

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Ok, since this bill was read in Parliament this morning, and it did contain the anti-circumvention provision as was speculated, I'm going to go ahead and make this video.

If anyone is interested in assisting, it would be much appreciated. Mainly, I'll need someone with a DV cam to record the following:

1. A sequence of me walking into Megatunes on 17th Ave SW and purchasing a DRM-crippled CD with cash.

2. A close up shot of the Megatunes receipt, showing I paid in full for the CD in question.

3. A sequence of me trying to rip the CD to my computer using iTunes, which will fail because of the DRM.

4. A sequence of me employing circumvention software (EAC + LAME or whatever) to break the DRM, rip the CD to MP3 format, then upload it to my iPod.

I'd like to film this either tonight or tomorrow because I'm leaving town for ten days on Saturday. If anyone has a DV cam and lives near the Beltline area (or can travel there after work tonight) and you'd like to assist with this project (I can either list you in the credits or you can remain anonymous -- whichever you prefer), please send me a PM.

Damn, yesterday I would have done this for you in a second. Too busy the next few days.

[Bobblehead]

Excellent response, Barnes.

[Caged Great]

So, Has this passed already or not?

[FanIn80]

Maybe I'm confused, but doesn't this bill now give Canadians the express right to make copies of music they have LEGALLY purchased?

In so doing, does it not, then, make it illegal for a company to purposefully attempt to prevent that right by installing DRM utilities on their CDs?

I'm no law expert... but you can't have a law that gives two parties opposing rights. You can't give one guy the right to do something while giving someone else the right to prevent them from doing it.

I know it says "circumventing technical measures" but you can't tell me that some enterprising lawyer won't be able to get a judge to rule that a DRM utility on a music CD directly impedes another person's (now-granted) right to copy it to a device they legally own.

I don't know... I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how this is going to interfere with my ability to still go on doing things I already do: legally purchasing movies and CDs and copying them to my PS3 to watch later, or copying my legally purchased CDs to my hard drive at the office to listen to while I code... or to copy legally purchased CDs to my iPhone (soon!!)...

etc etc.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

So, Has this passed already or not?

The bill had its first reading in Parliament. In order to pass, it must still go through a second reading, be approved by the senate, and then ultimately signed by the Governor General to receive Royal Assent. Only then does it become law.

I would love, love, LOVE it if the Liberal-controlled senate or Liberal-appointed GG killed this bill.

[Mccree]

^^

I was thinking the same thing. IF I am allowed to copy a CD I purchase to my IPOD, how can there be some DRM on the CD that prevents me from doing this??

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Maybe I'm confused, but doesn't this bill now give Canadians the express right to make copies of music they have LEGALLY purchased?

In so doing, does it not, then, make it illegal for a company to purposefully attempt to prevent that right by installing DRM utilities on their CDs?

I'm no law expert... but you can't have a law that gives two parties opposing rights. You can't give one guy the right to do something while giving someone else the right to prevent them from doing it.

I know it says "circumventing technical measures" but you can't tell me that some enterprising lawyer won't be able to get a judge to rule that a DRM utility on a music CD directly impedes another person's (now-granted) right to copy it to a device they legally own.

I don't know... I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how this is going to interfere with my ability to still go on doing things I already do: legally purchasing movies and CDs and copying them to my PS3 to watch later, or copying my legally purchased CDs to my hard drive at the office to listen to while I code... or to copy legally purchased CDs to my iPhone (soon!!)...

etc etc.

Take this with a grain of salt since I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of this bill (largely taken from Michael Geist, who is a lawyer) is as follows:

C-61 grants you the explicit right to copy a CD to another format (such as MP3) for personal, non-commercial use, unless the CD was crippled with copy protection and you had to break the DRM to rip the CD. Even if you were format-shifting for personal, non-commercial use (such as copying the CD to your iPod or other portable device), if you had to crack the DRM, it's a violation of C-61.

[FanIn80]

One thing that needs to be mentioned is that this legislation will is what is allowing things like the iTunes store to finally rent moves to Canadains. I imagine Amazon.ca will start extending their U.S. only movie rental service to Canadians too, now that this law is in place.

So, yeah, it makes it more difficult for people to download things they haven't paid for... but it makes it easier for people who don't mind paying to have access to things they should have already had access to.

[RougeUnderoos]

Question: Who benefits from this? What does the average Canadian citizen "get" out of it? Have they even bothered to try to explain that?

It's pretty clear to me that the average Canadian citizen doesn't get anything at all except a bunch of pointless new regulations that nobody will understand, but I'm wondering about the spin they are putting on it to make it look beneficial to Canadians.

[FanIn80]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Take this with a grain of salt since I'm not a lawyer, but my understanding of this bill (largely taken from Michael Geist, who is a lawyer) is as follows:

C-61 grants you the explicit right to copy a CD to another format (such as MP3) for personal, non-commercial use, unless the CD was crippled with copy protection and you had to break the DRM to rip the CD. Even if you were format-shifting for personal, non-commercial use (such as copying the CD to your iPod or other portable device), if you had to crack the DRM, it's a violation of C-61.

So, basically, it allows an artist to decide whether or not they want us to make digital copies of their work?

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

Maybe I'm confused, but doesn't this bill now give Canadians the express right to make copies of music they have LEGALLY purchased?

In so doing, does it not, then, make it illegal for a company to purposefully attempt to prevent that right by installing DRM utilities on their CDs?

I'm no law expert... but you can't have a law that gives two parties opposing rights. You can't give one guy the right to do something while giving someone else the right to prevent them from doing it.

I know it says "circumventing technical measures" but you can't tell me that some enterprising lawyer won't be able to get a judge to rule that a DRM utility on a music CD directly impedes another person's (now-granted) right to copy it to a device they legally own.

I don't know... I guess I'm having a hard time understanding how this is going to interfere with my ability to still go on doing things I already do: legally purchasing movies and CDs and copying them to my PS3 to watch later, or copying my legally purchased CDs to my hard drive at the office to listen to while I code... or to copy legally purchased CDs to my iPhone (soon!!)...

etc etc.

I'm no law expert either but here's the provision in question:

Originally Posted by Stupid 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:

...

(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;

It would seem that there are a number of conditions precedent to your "right" to make a copy of a sound recording for personal use. One of those conditions precedent is that you did not circumvent any technological protection measures (TPM) designed to prevent the sound recording from being copied.

Ergo, if there is a TPM in place and you need to defeat it in order to copy the sound recording then you do not have the benefit of this section and your activity is infringing.

In the case of copying your DVD to your PS3, you will be infringing should that particular DVD contain any kind of TPM. As far as I know, most/all have some sort of encryption on them that must be defeated in order to rip it. The provisions about PVRs only apply to sound and video recordings that are broadcast (your DVD is not being broadcast).

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

So, basically, it allows an artist to decide whether or not they want us to make digital copies of their work?

I'm willing to bet a lot of artists won't have any say in whether the label produces their CDs with or without DRM.

[Barnes]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

So, basically, it allows an artist to decide whether or not they want us to make digital copies of their work?

Artists have nothing to do with that decision. It's the labels'.

[FanIn80]

Well... lower-end, puppetesque artists like Britney Spears and Hillary Duff maybe...

...but I'd love to see a label tell Korn to put DRM on thier CDs.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

So, basically, it allows an artist to decide whether or not they want us to make digital copies of their work?

Not the artists, the record labels. Some music companies, such as EMI and Canada's Nettwerk, have publicly expressed opposition to using DRM. Others, such as SonyBMG, continue to cripple their CDs with anti-consumer copy protection whether the artists want it or not.

[fredr123]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

One thing that needs to be mentioned is that this legislation will is what is allowing things like the iTunes store to finally rent moves to Canadains. I imagine Amazon.ca will start extending their U.S. only movie rental service to Canadians too, now that this law is in place.

So, yeah, it makes it more difficult for people to download things they haven't paid for... but it makes it easier for people who don't mind paying to have access to things they should have already had access to.

Movies became available on iTunes in Canada before this bill was introduced, let alone before the bill became law:
http://www.apple.com/ca/press/2008_0...es_movies.html