As expected, Industry Canada Minster Jim Prentice has announced the new Canadian copyright act, Bill C-61 what many people have termed “Canada’s DMCA”. Read about it here.
As always with these things, check out Michael Geist’s Blog for an in depth analysis by a man much smarter than me.
At first blush, it looks not too bad- for example, the provisions for time- and device-shifting are far better than in previous iterations of the bill. But as Geist points out, a lot of the ‘good’ pieces in the legislation are undermined by the fine print. And the digital lock provisions are downright drachonian, much worse than the much-maligned American DMCA. Basically, if you digital rights protected material, it is wildly illegal for you to break that lock. Moreover, if you distribute tools to circumvent digital protection, the police will want to talk to you.
Oh, and if you have illegally downloaded music, you now owe the government $500 per song. Just FYI.
So, not so good. Keep checking out Michael Geist for updates.
Your link to Michael’s blog isnt working… looks like you’ve mixed it with yours
June 12th, 2008 at 1:34 pmFixed.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:27 pmOK, I’m sure I’m over-simplifying things here, but aren’t we talking about punishing people for doing illegal things?
People have a right to protect their copyrighted materials. And they should also have the right to expect that people won’t violate those rights.
Just as with other laws, if you don’t want to punished or fined, don’t break them.
June 12th, 2008 at 2:50 pmMatej,
We’re not talking about punishing people for doing illegal things. We’re talking about what things ought to be illegal and punishable in the first place.
This is the law we’re talking about.
Jim Prentice things it should be illegal to put A Perfect Circle’s album, Thirteenth Step, on your iPod, even if you’re purchased it. $6000 worth of illegal.
Prentice also thinks it should be illegal for spouses to share a digital music collection, even if they share a physical one.
Prentice things it should be illegal to use your VCR or DVR to time shift a television program if the broadcastor says it doesn’t want to you.
Prentice thinks uploading a video that infringes copyright to YouTube is $20,000 worth of illegal.
Prentice is defining what’s illegal and what the associating damages are, and he’s taken a U.S. industry written bill and pretending it’s been made in Canada.
June 12th, 2008 at 3:30 pmBlaise,
Thanks for the clarification. I happen to agree that uploading copyrighted material should be illegal. More to the point, I think it’s wrong.
I think if a broadcaster doesn’t want you to record their programs, in whatever format, that’s entirely their right. If you do it, you risk the consequences.
I do think you should have to right to put music on digital devices if you own it and that spouses should be able to share music collections. But I also believe that the people who own the rights to that music in the first get to define how you use it when you purchase it. It’s part of the agreement you enter into in that transaction. Again, you violate that, you risk consequences.
And if you have The Thirteenth Step on your iPod… well, that’s just bad taste.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:24 pmUnder C-61, it will be illegal to “circumvent” the “technical protection measure” that is region coding to watch DVDs you legally purchased overseas in Canada.
It will also be illegal to watch any DVD on a PC running the Linux operating system, since the Linux DVD-playing software is not “authorized” by the cartel of major movie studios that controls the DVD format.
Basically, if a work has any kind of “protection measure” on it, C-61 will give the publisher absolute authority over how you’re allowed to enjoy it, including what brands of hardware and software you’re allowed to play it on. It’s as if the publisher of a book had the power to dictate where you’re allowed to read it after you’ve legally purchased it.
June 12th, 2008 at 4:35 pmBut I also believe that the people who own the rights to that music in the first get to define how you use it when you purchase it.
Why on earth would you believe that? Do you believe that the publisher of a book you purchase should have the power to dictate which rooms of your house you’re allowed to read it in, or whether you’re allowed to skip chapters or write notes in the margins?
June 12th, 2008 at 4:38 pmAWJ,
I fail to see how that is at all analogous to the issue at hand, though perhaps I should have been more clear: Sharing your music collection with your spouse or digitizing a purchased CD to put on a digital listening device (again, both things I believe you should be allowed to do) are effectively methods of copying that music. That’s what we’re talking about here. And the rights holders of that music certainly have the right to protect their music from being copied and pirated (made necessary by those who feel it is their right to steal someone else’s creation. Just because you buy a CD doesn’t mean you suddenly own the music; you just own the CD).
That said, I do, in fact, believe that a book publisher has the right to dictate how you use its product. Just as you, the consumer, have a right to protest that decision by not entering into a transaction with a publisher whose methods you disagree with.
I’m not saying it would be correct — or even smart — for a publisher to do this, but certainly within their rights. (And this kind of thing already happens, at least with DVDs: David Lynch refuses to put chapter breaks on his DVDs because he believes the film should be enjoyed as a whole. I certainly don’t fault him for that. Don’t like it? Don’t buy it.)
June 13th, 2008 at 8:35 amMatej: Part of the problem is that the consumer only gets to know the conditions the producer dictates the work to be used under *after* the purchase is already made. Producers are not required to list the copyright measures they employ, what rights they are granting you or what rights they are keeping anywhere that a consumer has a hope of finding out about them before the purchase.
The very concept of a EULA, a licence agreement that the end-user must accept to use the product but that it only presented after the purchase of the product, is completely bogus. Unfortunately, Bill C-61 gives these things the weight of law.
Here’s some other things the bill prevents you from doing: I get a lot of my music by legally purchasing it from e-music. On occasion, I’ll find a track I’m pretty sure a friend would like, even if I don’t. I download it for him, slap it on my ipod, give it to him to copy, and then delete the original because — hey, hard drive space isn’t inifinite. According to bill C-61 I’m now a criminal. Even though I’ve paid for a single copy, haven’t circumvented any technological protection measures, and there doesn’t even exist more copies than I paid for. The simple act of *giving away my shit* has been made illegal by this bill.
Oh, and as a side note, by reading this message, you have hereby agreed to the EULA that upon us meeting, you will purchase me a steak dinner. If you do not accept this EULA, please contact the author of this message and explain, in Farsi, why you should not be compelled to accept a licence that you knew nothing about.
The scary bit is.. under C-61.. crap like that has the authority of law.
June 17th, 2008 at 12:13 pm