Canadian DMCA to be introduced in June

[photon]

http://www.boingboing.net/2010/05/20...lout-heri.html

Michael Geist sez, "Reports in the Canadian media confirm what was reported in the blogosphere several weeks ago - out-of-touch Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore has won the internal fight for a Canadian DMCA. The reports say the Canadian government is likely to introduce the bill next week complete with digital lock provisions that mirror those found in the U.S. DMCA. The bill may also include some important new exceptions, but those will be subject to the use of a digital lock. In other words, they are new rights that come with a big caveat in that they can be eliminated anytime by a rights holder."
A translation for the layperson. In the USA, it's illegal to break a "digital lock," such as the one that prevents you from copying a DVD to your laptop or phone.

Stupid government.

[IliketoPuck]

So where does this leave you if you use a program like Limewire to download music?

[anyonebutedmonton]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

So where does this leave you if you use a program like Limewire to download music?

Answer: 2006

[IliketoPuck]

Heh, but seriously?

[IliketoPuck]

I would also say not so much 2006 as maybe 2003.....behind the times I guess.

[photon]

It leaves you breaking the law and on the receiving end of a huge lawsuit that will ruin your life if the US is any indication.

[IliketoPuck]

Good to know.

I will tell my friend to get rid of the program.

[nik-]

Why does the Heritage Minister even have anything to do with this?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

Good to know.

I will tell my friend to get rid of the program.

lol, nice.

Still remains to be seen if ISPs will willingly pass over what is actually private information.

There is a huge difference in passing the bill, and another difference in being able to enforce it.

[Jimmy Stang]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

So where does this leave you if you use a program like Limewire to download music?

Based on the proposed Bill C-61 (which this one is said to mimic), you are better off illegally downloading your stuff.

Download a movie illegally: $500 fine.
Break a "digital lock" to put your legally purchased movie on your iPod: $20,000 fine.

I still buy my music and movies, and paying customers like myself will get screwed more than anyone. This will do nothing to prevent piracy and will criminalize simple things like watching a movie on your iPod. Brutal. Screw 'em.

Entertainment companies have been drilling into everyone's head that you don't own the movie, you simply own a license to watch it. I get that. But now to actually watch it on a format other than DVD, I am exposing myself to fines?

The music and movie industries have relied on double and triple-dipping for way too long. A format change (VHS-DVD) meant that people were buying the same movie more than once in their lifetimes. Now with digital, HD movies available, people no longer need to do that. Of course, instead of changing business models, just criminalize it. Now I have to buy a format for my DVD player, a format for my iPod, etc. etc.

It has clearly reached the point where purchasing music and movies is no longer worth it. The penalties are more severe and your rights are more limited if you actually put money into the industry.

[IliketoPuck]

So in all honesty how would this even be enforced?

Do you get a bunch of cops to go around checking people's ipod's for songs that may or may not be downloaded/illegally security broken? What a farce this is going to turn into.

Couldn't you also make the argument that a company like Apple is complicit in encouraging users to take songs and media and put them on the devices in the first place?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Azure

lol, nice.

Still remains to be seen if ISPs will willingly pass over what is actually private information.

There is a huge difference in passing the bill, and another difference in being able to enforce it.

Can ISP's charge an extra fee to those willing to pay it to keep their info secret?

[AC]

I think enforcement is dependent almost entirely upon ISP's reporting their own clients.

Though I could be wrong.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Does this mean they are going to remove the levy on blank media? Considering it won't be legal to rip movies/music onto, how can they tax it?

What if I am seeding torrents from my neighbor's connection and he's got unsecured wireless?

This bill is just a bunch of bunk. Nothing is going to happen guys, download away!

[Azure]

Originally Posted by nik-

Can ISP's charge an extra fee to those willing to pay it to keep their info secret?

I don't think that would be fair. "Pay me more or I'll disclose personal information to whoever asks." Credit cards too?

[photon]

Originally Posted by IliketoPuck

So in all honesty how would this even be enforced?

Do you get a bunch of cops to go around checking people's ipod's for songs that may or may not be downloaded/illegally security broken? What a farce this is going to turn into.

Couldn't you also make the argument that a company like Apple is complicit in encouraging users to take songs and media and put them on the devices in the first place?

There are entire companies dedicated to this kind of thing. They will put their own special clients into torrents and other P2P networks and farm IP addresses of people who connect to their special client.

Some will even upload a poisoned version of the movie/cd/whatever, one that appears complete but never actually does finish, so while people out there are downloading they never get what they want and their IP gets farmed as well.

There are even blacklists of known IPs these companies use that people compile in an effort to make sure their computer never connects to one of these "honey pots".

Originally Posted by nik-

Can ISP's charge an extra fee to those willing to pay it to keep their info secret?

I guess they could say they could keep the information secret if asked, but if there was a court order then they'd have to obey the law no matter how much a client paid I would think.

Maybe an extra fee for an ISP that intentionally never keeps any logs.

Originally Posted by AC

I think enforcement is dependent almost entirely upon ISP's reporting their own clients.

Though I could be wrong.

Yup, you have to correlate the IP address and the person somehow, and the easiest way is through the ISP. Though not the only way, maybe Sony is logging all the IPs going to my store to buy a digital camera and correlating that purchase information with downloaders?

But again if they have a court order to disclose because someone broke the law, they have to give up the info don't they?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Azure

I don't think that would be fair. "Pay me more or I'll disclose personal information to whoever asks." Credit cards too?

They own the IP's, it's not personal information. It may not be fair, but could they legally do it?

[Azure]

Originally Posted by AC

I think enforcement is dependent almost entirely upon ISP's reporting their own clients.

Though I could be wrong.

Pretty much.

And if you closely read Shaw's TOS, they do say that if someone illegally does this that and the other thing they will be reported to authorities.

But, they also say they don't actively monitor accounts, and only pay attention to someone if he excessively violates an agreement. Like using too much bandwidth or going to a higher number of child porn sites.

Shaw has what? A million customers? It would cost a lot of money, man-power not to mention headache for them to start enforcing this law and reporting their clients for illegal downloading.

[csnarpy]

As a Dj, this will be interesting when it gets passed. Almost all dj's now depend on digital music files for use in Serato or other mp3 type dj software. There is no way in hell i'm going back lugging in cd/vinyl cases to play gigs.


As for downloading......(cough...*newbin pro*...cough)

[nik-]

Originally Posted by photon

I guess they could say they could keep the information secret if asked, but if there was a court order then they'd have to obey the law no matter how much a client paid I would think.

Maybe an extra fee for an ISP that intentionally never keeps any logs.

Fair enough, but are there not US ISPs that don't provide this information to the RIAA?