The only thing wrong with C-11 as it stands currently are the digital lock provisions. Everything else in the bill is rather liberal, and, frankly, some of the provisions are outright good for Canadians (limits on fines, ISP liability exemptions, educational use exemptions, "mashup" exemptions). Calling for protests against the bill in its entirety is ignorant and blaming "the majority government" for passing draconian laws is outright sensationalist and false. That's not really how we do things here in Canada. There's a better way to get things done, and it doesn't involve hyperbole.
Yes, the digital locks portions of the bill could use some reworking-- but as mentioned, the enforceability of the law as its codified now is questionable, so I wonder how big of a deal it would actually be for the law to be passed as is. Remember, as pointed out, use of VCRs is also technically illegal, but you don't see any enforcement of that. The issue surrounding digital locks may very well have the same practical effect. We should certainly try to get these provisions changed before they are codified, but IMO it's not really the end of the world.
Yes, there is going to be a lot of push from powerful lobbyists to get "SOPA-like" provisions into the bill. However that is a reason to remain vigilant, not a reason to pre-emptively black out the internet again. As it stands, those additions have yet to be added to the bill, so right now, the lobbying power hasn't done very much. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not the type to start blaming people for things that haven't happened yet. I'm going to watch and wait until there is something reminiscent of SOPA in this bill, which may or may not happen.
FYI for those who are just jumping on the bus because SOPA is in the title of this article, please read a bit on the issue before injecting your opinion or outrage. Michael Geist is a good and well respected source on this issue. He's come out (more or less) in favour of the bill, minus his open objections to the digital locks portions, which I pointed out above. However, his general approval should say something about the bill-- Geist probably knows a lot more about copyright law in Canada than anyone here does. His comments regarding C-32 (now C-11) can be found in this rather old posting: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5316/125/
I'm working on a letter to my MP and Senator to fix the digital lock issue. This is the argument I'm fleshing out. Feedback is appreciated:
Regarding digital locks, in an earlier version of the bill called C-60, they had the completely reasonable position that circumventing digital locks would only infringe if the circumvention was done to further an infringing act. If you broke the lock to exercise your fair dealing rights, that would not be infringement.
The WIPO lawyers argued that wasn't the intention of the Internet treaties we signed, but I think that's bullshit. A marketing campaign after the fact about the possible intention of the law doesn't matter; only what's written and how it would be reasonably interpreted to achieve its stated aims.
The WIPO treaties explicitly allow for fair dealing and fair use restrictions on the rights granted to copyright holders. Further, they only demand that digital locks are protected to enforce rights of the copyright holders.
However, clearly the rights of the copyright holders are limited by the fair dealing provisions (1), and therefore the digital locks don't need to be enforced where they prevent non-infringing uses.
(1) If you don't get this, it's important to remember that rights and freedoms are never unlimited. We have freedom of expression in Canada, but that is reasonably limited when that expression causes harm to society, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or hate speech or even reporting election results early. The full right isn't the one paragraph that grants "freedom of expression" in the Charter, but that paragraph limited by the reasonable restrictions around it.
Similarly, copyrights are not the simple paragraph descriptions like "right to control copies", but the full right as limited by fair dealing.
Therefore, when WIPO only asks for enforcement of digital locks that protect the rights of copyright holders, that requirement is limited by fair dealing.
The primary difference between American and Canadian copyright law is that although the new bill implements DMCA-and SOPA-like provisions, the safe harbour clauses for ISPs are somewhat more lenient.
Whereas the DMCA mandates a notice-and-takedown scheme, Canadian legislatures have preferred to adopt a "Canadian" solution of notice-and-notice, which means that ISPs and hosting providers have more immunity by giving notice to their customers.
Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword. Although service providers have greater immunity, thus less threatening to the structure of the internet, consumers are more likely to be given up by said providers, because there are less incentives for companies to defend such actions (since it requires far less costs and actions on their part to give notice rather than to take down infringing material).
> Also, Canada really needs an updated copyright law.
We need an updated copyright law that isn't broken. The blanket ban on breaking digital locks in C-11 (no exceptions for fair dealing, privacy, personal use etc.) is fundamentally wrong and would likely not survive a constitutional challenge, but the government flatly refuses to reconsider it.
It's possible the government wants to ratify a broken bill to satisfy their treaty rights to the WTO, with the hope and expectation it will be squashed by the courts soon after. Canada gets the law that makes sense without the associated trade sanctions. The cost is several years and several million dollars fighting it out in court.
The thing is, we don't need a blanket ban on digital lock breaking to satisfy the WIPO treaty (I assume that's what you mean). The C-11 model of 'balance' leans heavily on:
* Content owners voluntarily making their content available (e.g. the 'permission culture' among academics);
* Content available in multiple formats, some of which may not have digital locks;
* The ability for government apparatus to regulate exceptions on the fly; and
* The government's insistence that it would be highly unlikely for a digital lock violation based on fair dealing to result in damages.
Essentially, the government's position is: trust us! I don't.
Other countries have passed laws that put them into compliance with WIPO and still maintain reasonable exceptions to break digital locks for valid reasons of fair use/dealing, privacy and so on.
Note: I've seen legal arguments suggesting that C-11 forbids breaking digital locks that function as access controls but does not forbid breaking digital locks that function as copy controls. In other words, it's illegal to hack a paywall so that you can read protected content, but it's not illegal to enable right-clicking to copy content to which you have legal access.
IANAL but I can already see a problem with this: if the same digital lock serves both functions, it is impossible to carry out the latter without also violating the former.
Link? Whatever kind of illegal they might be, it's not the kind that stops stores from selling hem or people from buying them. I'm highly suspicious of this claim.
Again, there's nothing in there about it being illegal (and Geist would be the first to point it out if it was), just that recording a show to watch later is not a protected right. It's not illegal, but cable companies may choose to implement DRM that would make it impossible, without Canadians having the right to circumvent it. So yes, it's broken, but it's not a forbidden practice under the law.
Timeshifting isn't forbidden, but recording TV programs is.
To quote from that article, "[...] address this issue as well, either by expanding the fair dealing user right such that home television taping would be permitted ...". It wouldn't be necessary to "address this issue" if it were already permitted.
>Timeshifting isn't forbidden, but recording TV programs is.
Again, the article says nothing of the sort. He's arguing in favor of explicitly permitting certain kinds of recording, which the law currently does not. Nor, to my knowledge, and certainly not as far as the article claims, does it forbid it. It is currently unregulated, which means you're free to do it, and others are free to try and stop you.
Ok, since we clearly disagree about what he was writing, I'll point you at the copyright act:
a broadcaster has a copyright in the communication signals that it broadcasts, consisting of the sole right to do the following in relation to the communication signal or any substantial part thereof:
(a) to fix it,
We need everyone to stand united across all borders against this kind of BS legislation. If Canada somehow lets this pass it creates a dangerous precedent for future US developments.
Unfortunately there's not a whole lot we can do (speaking as a Canadian). There's a majority government in power that can basically do whatever they want.
The only hope we have is to protest this law publicly to the point where they alter it further (C-11 is already and altered version of the much more draconian C-31).
I was going to say essentially the same thing. My MP is already in the Opposition so I can't really do much here to fight this but if there was a protest I would try to participate.
It's was obvious that as soon as a majority government would come to power this bill would go through (Regardless of which party was the majority in my view)
Must be nice, I wish the NDPs would have a breakout here in Alberta. The MP from my riding is in power, and supports C-11 with statements like, "I'm not an Internet expert in this, but..."
Any efforts of writing or contacting him on this topic (or any) are gleefully ignored.
What really frustrates me is that the Conservatives were voted in thanks the rural farmers and retirees who actually got out to vote in my province. Here in my central Alberta riding in 2011, the CONs got 75% of the vote, but only 30% voted!
And thanks to this, the entire country is forced to follow our PM's indelible path. Even though the majority of people didn't actually vote for him.
Now Canadians are embarrassed on the world stage by C-11, and stuff like this:
"What really frustrates me is that the Conservatives were voted in thanks the rural farmers and retirees who actually got out to vote in my province."
A big part of it was that they won the immigrant/new Canadian vote in Ontario. The values of these groups are much more in line with the Cons than the Libs. Peoples from the Eastern Bloc would never vote NDP because they've experienced similar politics already.
http://www.sorryworld.ca/ assumes that all those things listed are "good things" or that they make Canada "awesome". That' a matter of opinion, and I disagree with a lot of those things. I'm not proud that cats and dogs get better medical treatment here than humans. :(
See the Conservatives had to actually work to get voted in Ontario. They see being elected in Alberta as a entitlement.
Other parties don't even put in any major campaign resources out here anymore: The Liberal name has been tarnished ever since the NEP/Trudeau, and the NDP spend what little cash they have in ridings they'll actually have a chance.
I agree with you about http://www.sorryworld.ca, not every point embodies everyone's values, although you have to admit the world's perception of Canada has degraded drastically since the Conservatives have come to (true) power.
Bill C-11... the oil-sands PR mess.. and now banning trans-genders from flying[1]... The Conservatives are just cashing in their blank cheque.
The last "majority" was 50.04% of the vote back in 1984
Indeed, and prior to Mulroney in 1984 the only true majorities were Diefenbaker in 1958, once during each world war (both of which were distinctly atypical elections), and 1904 and earlier.
That's not true at all or even how Canada usually works. The bill is very balanced because it has been years in the making, taking consultation from many sides. It also hasn't passed the Senate yet as far as I understand. Write your MP and your Senator about it.
Here is the Parliamentary summary of this bill's history, which is very well written. It should give you greater faith in our system.
Hey, thanks! This is a great resource that I wasn't aware of. After reading it, I highly recommend anybody interested in bill C-11 should also read through this for greater context.
I should also point out that my original comment indicating that the precursor to C-11 was C-31 was incorrect. The correct bill is C-32.
It would be nice if Wikipedia, Reddit and Google did a day of protest for this just like they did for SOPA. Please redirect to a protest page for Canadian IP addresses.
I'll note that I'm not having the issue at work. Possibly my home IP is flagged as mobile. (I don't think it's a cookie, as I had the same issue using Incognito Mode in Chromium)
Yes, the digital locks portions of the bill could use some reworking-- but as mentioned, the enforceability of the law as its codified now is questionable, so I wonder how big of a deal it would actually be for the law to be passed as is. Remember, as pointed out, use of VCRs is also technically illegal, but you don't see any enforcement of that. The issue surrounding digital locks may very well have the same practical effect. We should certainly try to get these provisions changed before they are codified, but IMO it's not really the end of the world.
Yes, there is going to be a lot of push from powerful lobbyists to get "SOPA-like" provisions into the bill. However that is a reason to remain vigilant, not a reason to pre-emptively black out the internet again. As it stands, those additions have yet to be added to the bill, so right now, the lobbying power hasn't done very much. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not the type to start blaming people for things that haven't happened yet. I'm going to watch and wait until there is something reminiscent of SOPA in this bill, which may or may not happen.
FYI for those who are just jumping on the bus because SOPA is in the title of this article, please read a bit on the issue before injecting your opinion or outrage. Michael Geist is a good and well respected source on this issue. He's come out (more or less) in favour of the bill, minus his open objections to the digital locks portions, which I pointed out above. However, his general approval should say something about the bill-- Geist probably knows a lot more about copyright law in Canada than anyone here does. His comments regarding C-32 (now C-11) can be found in this rather old posting: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5316/125/