Canadian DMCA to be introduced in June

[Locke]

[photon]

Looks like today's the day.

And if there was any doubt that the sole purpose of this is to appease the US:

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5079/135/

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by photon

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/n...-p2p-users.ars

Coming soon to a court room near you.

That graph is disturbing:

[WilsonFourTwo]

Tony Clement said today that:

"Any bill worth its salt in this is going to have elements that strive to balance those interests, and not everybody's going to like where the balance is going to be struck," he said.

It will be interesting to see the (real) details of the bill, because from what we've heard thus far, BALANCE is not something that can be used to describe the legislation.

I gave up my Conservative membership about a year ago in protest (wasn't happy with the direction of the party), but now, I can't even imagine giving them a vote. I don't see any evidence of 'Socially liberal, fiscally conservative' in anything they do. All I see is constant submission to big business and doing whatever possible to stay in power.....its so sad.

Welcome to Canada....we've got 3 National Parties, a handful of quality MPs and absolutely zero real leadership. Aggravating.

[The Yen Man]

Hmm, I must say, if this thing gets passed, they can kiss my conservative vote goodbye.

[photon]

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5080/125/

Looks like some positive changes, but still broken overall.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by photon

http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5080/125/

Looks like some positive changes, but still broken overall.

Very well put, sadly. Example: You have the right to 'Format Shift'. This is awesome news, as I can now legally rip a DVD and put it onto my iPod. Oh wait - I'd still be a criminal because I'm not allowed to bypass the digital lock on the DVD. I guess I'll just have to stick with stuff that doesn't have a digital lock. What? Everything has a digital lock nowadays? Oh.

[BurningYears]

Does anyone know how long it takes parliament to pass a bill usaully? im not a big CPAC follower. haha

[Russic]

So will this curve anybody's usage of bit torrent around here? Is this the kind of thing that's put in place to appease the US but nobody will actually follow through on? The states has had something similar to this for some time ... it still seems like bit torrent activity down there is pretty active.

[fredr123]

http://www.entertainmentmedialawsign...digital-locks/

According to these guys, the government has struck an interesting balance with respect to breaking digital locks for private purposes.

[A]s Geist puts it, "anytime a digital lock is used, it trumps virtually all other rights".

As a legal matter, Geist is correct. But this Bill needs to be assessed not just as a theoretical matter, but as a practical one. And if we drill down a bit further into the proposed legislation, what we see is that the government has, as in so many other areas in this Bill, crafted what seems to be a rather elegant solution: the statutory damages provisions have been altered to the point where it disincentivizes a rightsholder from bringing an infringement action for infringing activity which is for private use. The practical result? "Breaking" a digital lock is copyright infringement, but is no more likely to result in a lawsuit against your average "private" infringer than they were likely to be sued for recording TV shows on their PVR over the past few years.


Here's the analysis: Section 46 of the Bill modifies the statutory damages provisions (Section 38.1 of the Act) to draw a distinction between infringement for commercial purposes (where damages can range from $500 to $20,000 for each work infringed) and infringements for non-commercial purposes (where damages can range from $100 to $5,000 for all works infringed). So right off the top we've made it less punitive for "private" infringers. The Bill then goes to mandate that courts, in the case of "private" infringers, consider the need for damages awards to be proportionate and take account of any hardship the damages might impose.


All of which is nice, but largely irrelevant (though indicative of the trend), because, even more importantly, what will become Section 41.1(3) of the revised Act provides that statutory damages are not available to an owner who sues an individual for "breaking" a digital lock when that breaking was done only for private purposes - which means, consistent with prior jurisprudence on copyright damages, damages are calculated to put a rightsholder in the position they would have occupied but for the infringement. And in the case of an infringement for private use (such as the back-up copy illustration used above), those damages are likely to be negligible. Absent the prospect of statutory damages, the likelihood of a rightsholder bringing an action for enforcement is radically reduced, since they'd be forced to expend enormous amounts of money to recover virtually nothing.

[bradster57]

Originally Posted by Russic

So will this curve anybody's usage of bit torrent around here? Is this the kind of thing that's put in place to appease the US but nobody will actually follow through on? The states has had something similar to this for some time ... it still seems like bit torrent activity down there is pretty active.

I'll still torrent as much as I do now. If this law was actively enforced maybe I would stop but it's not like I would go back to renting movies from Blockbuster.

If there was a pay per download service (for movies) in Canada I would consider it if it was reasonably priced.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by fredr123

http://www.entertainmentmedialawsign...digital-locks/

According to these guys, the government has struck an interesting balance with respect to breaking digital locks for private purposes.

Gah I hope so.

I have no problem with them going against people that download illegally, especially from bittorrent sources, but they need to make it as non-appealing as possible for these media companies to go after a home-owner who rips DVDs for his own personal use.

[The Yen Man]

I only torrent anime and HK TVB shows, and I don't see that as a high priorty for crackdown since they're unlicensed in North America (at least I think they're unlicensed).

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by ericschand

It's too late.

I asked friends with kids, elementary through University, still living at home.
I asked, "When is the last time you gave your kid some money to go buy a
CD?" I also asked a large group of co-workers the same question.

The response was an overwhelming...blank look. "Money to buy what?" was
the usual response. One had given his kid some money, "Oh maybe a year
ago, maybe two years? Dunno, I remember doing it." This one looked
embarrassed to admit it.

Then I followed up with, "Where do your kids get music? How much do they
pay for it?" Overwhelmingly, "Off the internet! For free!"

I asked the same questions of some teenagers. Same responses. They
even tried to hide the fact they had accounts on Demonoid and such.

So, you've lost the teenagers and University students.

Young kids, less than 10 years old, consistently ask, "Can you download
<insert entertainment here> for me?" All my friends kids ask that. As soon
as the newest Disney show is out, I hear about it all the time. Heck my
daughter wants a flash key so she can copy them from her friends! (The
answer so far has been, "No.")

My parents know they can get movies online. Their friends know they can
get movies online. All of them!

The final question I asked is, "Why go online? Why not spend the money?"

Overwhelmingly the initial response is, "It's not worth $X!" or along the
lines of, "$60 to go out for a movie? Are you kidding?"
Then usually something about it being so simple, it's hard not to.

When I informed them of Bill C61, and its current ilk, they were shocked
but shrugged. Not one said they would change their habits, especially
the teenagers and University students. They were the most angry and defiant.
Most carried an attitude of, "Yeah, like they'll catch me!"

So I put it to you, it's too late. You've lost the older generation, you've
lost the University generation, you've lost the teenager generation, and
you've lost the young children too.

Are you really going to go after all of them?

ers

Certainly, it is too late. I'm no fan of the new bill, but at the same time, how do we deal with a generation of people that think they shouldn't have to pay for music/movies or media in general? And its not only young kids, even my friends in their 20's wouldn't spend a penny on music these days. And they always drum up the old "well I support the artist by going to the concert" but then end up going to about 1 concert a year if that, while still continuing to download as much music for free as they want. Its a real problem. People can harp about the major labels and big business all they want, but really, there's now a sense of entitlement on the consumer end to recieve this content free of charge. That sense of entitlement is going to be tough to reverse. It seems to me that all but the most passionate music fans have adopted this sense of entitlement...at least thats what I notice in my peer group.

[Frank MetaMusil]

Originally Posted by Igottago

Certainly, it is too late. I'm no fan of the new bill, but at the same time, how do we deal with a generation of people that think they shouldn't have to pay for music/movies or media in general? And its not only young kids, even my friends in their 20's wouldn't spend a penny on music these days. And they always drum up the old "well I support the artist by going to the concert" but then end up going to about 1 concert a year if that, while still continuing to download as much music for free as they want. Its a real problem. People can harp about the major labels and big business all they want, but really, there's now a sense of entitlement on the consumer end to recieve this content free of charge. That sense of entitlement is going to be tough to reverse. It seems to me that all but the most passionate music fans have adopted this sense of entitlement...at least thats what I notice in my peer group.

I agree, but there are some people who don't even use going to concerts as justification. My brother for instance, downloads as much as he can simply because he believes that paying for internet signal from a provider constitutes fair use by enabling him to download whatever he wants.

[The Yen Man]

I think one of the problems too is that the general public really doesn't feel that sorry for a celebrity still making millions of dollars despite all the downloads. Yes, piracy is rampant. But celebs still look like they're doing pretty well for themselves despite it.

I mean, Tom Cruise still has millions of dollars to be his level 100 templar or warlock or whatever at his church despite people downloading his movies.

[The Ditch]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I think one of the problems too is that the general public really doesn't feel that sorry for a celebrity still making millions of dollars despite all the downloads. Yes, piracy is rampant. But celebs still look like they're doing pretty well for themselves despite it.

The only people involved in the whole movie process including it being put on any format are celebrities.

[Igottago]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

I think one of the problems too is that the general public really doesn't feel that sorry for a celebrity still making millions of dollars despite all the downloads. Yes, piracy is rampant. But celebs still look like they're doing pretty well for themselves despite it.

I mean, Tom Cruise still has millions of dollars to be his level 100 templar or warlock or whatever at his church despite people downloading his movies.

So...the top earners of most companies do pretty damn well. Should we get free gas because Shell's CEO has a mansion?

Also, the people you classify as celebrities are a small portion of the people involved in making these industries happen. They just happen to get all the attention for it.

There is no other industry where people expect things for free. Every industry is designed to maximize profit. So why is there this notion that when it comes to music (and other media), that its fine to expect it for free?

[The Yen Man]

I'm just trying to explain the rationale behind why people don't feel guilty downloading, that's all. I'm not saying it's right. But little Jimmy who's downloading the latest Usher album or Lady Gaga album isn't going to think "wow, I really shouldn't be doing this since that means Usher isn't going to be able to feed his kids".

[Azure]

I think music isn't such a big deal anymore simply because iTunes has come along offering decent enough prices for music downloads.

But, in regards to movies, at least here in Canada nothing like that exists. And until it does, I think there will always be piracy.