Canadian government caves to US pressure

[Glaucus]

Tory bill cracks down on copyright pirates

Breaking the digital encryption on a movie DVD – even if copying it for personal use – would make individual Canadians liable for legal damages of up to $5,000 under a tougher copyright law proposed by the Harper government Wednesday.

The legislation, sponsored by federal Industry Minister Tony Clement, seeks to put more teeth in copyright law for those who make software, movies and other creative works and have seen their intellectual property increasingly pirated around the globe.

At the same time, the bill tries to soften the blow for consumers by legalizing commonplace but grey-area practices such as backing up the contents of a music CD, home recording of TV episodes for later viewing or copying legally acquired music to a digital player.

The centerpiece of the legislation, however, is the Conservative proposal to put new legal heft behind the digital locks, or encryption, that copyright holders place on products such as movies, video games and electronic books. It would make it illegal to crack these in most cases, including for personal use.

Typical Harper BS. He'll go on about how we now have the freedom to backup our very own items that we paid for and own, but will also turn around and say that you can't circumvent DRM. Well, can someone point me to a DVD worth watching that doesn't have some level of DRM? Yay, Harper allowed us to go back in time and make copies of VHS. Woohoo! Harper is nothing but a tool for the US. He's a snake in the grass.

As far as I'm concerned, not only should DRM not take priority over things like fair use, or our right to a backup, but it should be out right illegal. There's no reason why I can't do whatever I want to something I own.

The only good thing about this is that Harper can't pass it alone, he'll need the help of at least one other party. I'm hoping they all reject it.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

There's a lot of good in the bill and that's a problem because it does make the bill seem reasonable and it would be except for the digital lock bomb. Having legal force for digital locks makes all the other provisions void. You have all these reasonable rights in law except for picking the lock. Someone puts the lock on the stuff - bam - no more rights.

It would be interesting to see what kind of attack this could lead to. Imagine a trojan that encrypts all your files then you have to pay blackmail to get them unencrypted. Would you be legally allowed to find another way of picking the lock? Wouldn't that be fun if you had to break the law to save your stuff. Or even more likely - what if you forget the password you used to encrypt your hard drive?

 

[Glaucus]

There's a lot of good in the bill and that's a problem because it does make the bill seem reasonable and it would be except for the digital lock bomb. Having legal force for digital locks makes all the other provisions void.

Here's the mathematical formula for the above:

(1 + 1 + 1 + 1) * 0 = 0

Pretty simple stuff. Now why do the conservatives think Canadians are so stupid that they can't figure this one out?

But that's not all that bothers me. The statutory damages are bogus as well. Yes, they are FAR more reasonable then what the US has, but at the same time, why do we need statutory damages at all? Why can't we stick to actual damages? Why is copyright so important that we need to award damages orders of magnitude greater then actual damages? Without coming out and saying it, the government is admitting that actual damages are negligible. So why all the fuss in the first place? Makes one wonder.

 

[FluffyMcDeath]

I posted a blurb on the CBC about the lock pretty much agreeing with you that locks should be illegal and my basis for saying that was multifold.

1) They don't work for long.
2) They waste resources developing locks that could be better used elsewise.
3) The locks increase the costs to consumers without benefiting the consumers.

and proposed that instead of bludgeoning customers by the rule of law they work on improving their relationship to build loyalty. All very sensible.

The statutory damages are bogus as well.

Absolutely. The assumption is that there IS any loss at all. If you bust a counterfeiter who is running off knock-offs and making a business of selling them then you can make the case because obviously someone has tapped into your revenue stream, but for individual downloaders or copiers, not so much. It is ridiculous to claim that when someone downloaded a song they killed a sale because there is no way to know that they would have bought it if they couldn't get it for free. The presumption that people will buys multiple copies of something if you prevent them from using it on more than one device is also misplaced. People will just use one device. And when that device breaks I don't imagine them rushing out to replace all their files with new bought copies. If you lose $1000 worth of files because your device goes kablooie you will be soured on the whole game rather than inspired to go shopping.

 

[Glaucus]

Good points. But speaking of the CBC, I'm kinda irked that all the major media buried this. I thought the CBC would have given this a higher priority, but only the Globe seems to have taken this issue seriously, even offering a "live" discussion taking reader questions and stuff. The National Post on the other hand seems to prefer to treat the issue as a non-issue. Very frustrating. The good news is that Facebook is alive with buzz on this, spear headed by Michael Geist of course.

I'm planning on writing my MP, Anita Neville (Liberal), on this. Maybe also fire off a quick email to the only MP I personally know, Niki Ashton (NDP), who's already a member of the Fair Copyright for Canada Facebook group. Gotta let them know this new bill is horse shit (except I'll use nicer words).