Canada Plans To Re-Introduce Bad Copyright Plan, With Damaging Digital Locks Provisions, With No Additional Consultation

from the try-try-again dept

Wed, Sep 14th 2011 3:46am — Mike Masnick

The US entertainment industry is nothing if not persistent in trying to pressure foreign countries into implementing ever more draconian copyright law. And in Canada, it appears that the US firms have a willing partner in the form of Heritage Minister James Moore, who has announced that, despite massive and widespread criticism of last year's (US-driven) attempt at putting in place bad changes to copyright law, the current government plans to introduce the exact same bill with no changes and no further consultation.

Mr. Moore told The Canadian Press in an interview that the Conservative government will re-introduce its copyright bill this fall, in exactly the same form as legislation that died with the last Parliament.

The measures will go back to a legislative committee for study, and Mr. Moore said groups who testified before MPs won't be asked back to comment again.

�We've taken a couple runs at it before in minority Parliaments, but we think that we have a very good formula with the old Bill C-32 and when we come forward with our legislative agenda this fall we want to pick up where we left off, which is to continue the study of the legislation,� Mr. Moore said.

I guess that's what you would think when you brush off widespread and sustained criticism as merely being from "radical extremists."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: anti-circumvention, canada, copyright, digital locks, drm

38 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 4:17am

As the Harper government is now a majority rather than a minority, you can expect this one to drive right through.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Another AC, 14 Sep 2011 @ 5:13am

I have to say it
To all the idiots who said a Conservative majority was good for Canada, even after everyone said this was exactly what was going to happen: "I told you so."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:04am
  
  Re: I have to say it
  It couldn't be everyone, because if it was that party wouldn't have won an election would it?
  
  But really, the other party would have done the same thing and the why is simple, every politician today is aligned with the financial interests of special groups, that hand over the laws already drafted to whomever is in power and promises them comfy jobs when they leave office.
  
  So unless the people get organized and really, really start to draft their own laws and just elect anyone to just pass those laws the people have no voice inside any government.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 14 Sep 2011 @ 5:53am

No Further Consultation
If memory serves me, there has been an resistance to this bill every time it has been introduced in the past. So, last year, the minority Conservative Government held a consultation. Over 90% of respondents were against the bill.

Now, less than a year later, the majority Conservative Government intends on passing it regardless of public desire. This government has shown itself to believe that it may do whatever it desires in the next four years because it won an election with less than half of the popular vote.

The only matter now holding the show up is a pending Supreme Court of Canada decision regarding fair dealing pertaining to education. In the best case, this may require some very minor changes to the bill.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:08am
  
  Re: No Further Consultation
  The Harper Government just wants to make the US lobby industry, I mean government happy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:39am
  
  Re: No Further Consultation
  "This government has shown itself to believe that it may do whatever it desires in the next four years because it won an election with less than half of the popular vote."
  
  That's not the issue. What you're seeing countless times is the fact that the US lobbying industry is bullying other countries into accepting US "exports" by raising this "tariff".
  
  Brazil, Sweden, India, New Zealand, the UK, and even Europe are being bullied by the US government to accept bad laws that make the US money and leave everyone else worse off.
  
  The problem has been a persistant view into doing whatever the US policy makers want.
  
  It's high time that this policy changes to better society instead of a few gatekeepers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - freak (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:18am
    
    Re: Re: No Further Consultation
    No, jay, anonymous is right. The official opposition, the NDP, are throughly against C-32.
    
    It's only the CPC that wants to pass it, and, thanks to wikileaks cables, we now know they were the ones that asked the US to bully them so that we could get some support here behind passing this bill, (and others).
    
    Yes, you heard right, the CPC asked the US to put Canada on the 301 so that the people would back the CPC in making this decision, (and others). And we still haven't backed them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - freak (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re: No Further Consultation
      If you want look for the specific cable, it was Tony Clement's office which asked that of the US. A google search for 'tony clement wikileaks 301' should find it easily.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Jay (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:29am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: No Further Consultation
        I did not know that...
        
        I'm not familiar with Canadian laws so what the hell do they gain in pushing this?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        freak (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Further Consultation
        Fucked if I know.
        
        I either have to accept that the CPC is wilfully harming the Canadian populace, presumably for their own bribes, or that they are stupid enough to think this could help our economy.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        crade (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:43am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Further Consultation
        Because the US is already pressuring them behind the scenes and giving them no choice but to comply, but the people are fighting because they don't understand we are being forced. They want the US to make the pressure a bit more public so people will understand the US has us in an armbar and will stop fighting.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Jay (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 8:27am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: No Further Consultation
        Good luck on that one. The MPAA has been relentless in pursuing their strategies worldwide, costing them possibly millions and a LOT of bad faith.
        
        I wouldn't be surprised if the Chamber of Commerce wasn't involved, since they have a reputation for these type of shenanigans.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - crade (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:52am
      
      Re: Re: Re: No Further Consultation
      The CPC weren't the only ones, everyone who has been in power has tried to something similar. The NDP hasn't been in power yet, so they haven't faced the US bullying and we don't know what they would do when they were staring down that barrel.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:49am
  
  Re: No Further Consultation
  Must have used that year to grease the politicians' palms...I mean lobby them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:05am

At this point I'm impressed with the moose people, they managed to fend off 4 or more attempts already and it wouldn't surprise me if they fought this one as well.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
herbert, 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:10am

the 'radical extremists' concerned with this bill are certainly not the public but the Canadian government and the US entertainment industries, who obviously have the government officials in their back pocket!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:21am

With the backlash in Europe politicians may start to relize that it is possible to go a bridge too far in granting big content what it asks for. They may just wake up the people and the courts enough that some of the industry gains get rolled back.

In the US the Obama/Biden love affair with the copyright industry could make them very vulnerable. There are elements of the (relatively) sane wing of the Republican Party who are ready to make it an issue if the distraction of tea party crazies can be overcome.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:43am
  
  Re:
  There are elements of the (relatively) sane wing of the Republican Party who are ready to make it an issue if the distraction of tea party crazies can be overcome.
  
  Teatard-freetard alliance?!
  
  (Expressing no opinion - just like the sound...)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:33pm
  
  Re:
  "There are elements of the (relatively) sane wing of the Republican Party who are ready to make it an issue if the distraction of tea party crazies can be overcome."
  
  Really? Who? Wyden is a Dem as is Zoe Lofgren. Those are the only ones I've heard anything from.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shantzy (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:46am

It may be flawed, but it's better than anything else that has been proposed over the last 10 years: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5080/125

It might not pass as quickly as we think ... I'm sure that there is going to be considerable opposition (from publishers) to aspects of this bill (primarily the inclusion of "education" under the Fair Dealing exception).

More food for thought: http://excesscopyright.blogspot.com/2011/09/supreme-speculation.html
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- freak (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:23am
  
  Re:
  From your first linked article:
  "The digital lock provisions are by far the biggest flaw in the bill, rules that some will argue renders it beyond repair."
  
  I'm one such person.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - freak (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:31am
    
    Re: Re:
    Let me summarize for people too lazy to click on the link, or read the drafted bill:
    
    If the company tried to protect their content in anyway, their copyright rights trump yours in every way.
    
    Which means, that if the product was protected, there are no fair dealing provisions for anyone.
    No back-up CDs, no downloading movies, nothing that's legal currently would be legal if the CD or movie was protected in any way, no matter how crappy.
    
    To me, what this boils down to is : All the big content companies will have a stronger copyright, because they can afford to 'protect' their goods, and sue anyone who breaks the protection.
    From independent artists, or just about everyone on the web, big content companies will be able to take & steal even more freely than before, under 'fair dealing', even while their own works, because they're protected in an idiotic way, are immune to 'fair' dealing.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Shantzy (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 10:19am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No question that the "digital locks" provision is problematic!
      
      The current copyright act is really out of touch with the new digital environment - I think that the new bill would be a great improvement, particularly if the digital locks provision was softened a bit. Regardless, it is better than the "Canadian DMCA" bill that everyone was up in arms about a few years ago.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - freak (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 11:14am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        If the digital locks was removed, I still have to review it carefully, but I think I'd be in favour of the bill.
        
        If it were softened, I dunno . . . It just doesn't make sense.
        
        Let's make breaking locks illegal, yeah, that should ensure no one breaks locks . . .
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 1:20pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Small companies can benefit as well
      All they have to do is place a text file on their media named:
      
      PROTECTED.TXT
      
      This product (movie, music, software, book, song, etc) is herby protected with our patented pending TRM (Textual Rights Management). By possessing this product (which contains this text file) you agree that our TRM overrules and overrides any rights you may have thought you had in the product you purchased from us. By the way, based on our TRM, we didn't actually 'sell' you the product, we only 'licensed' you the ability to use our product as long as we see fit, we may revoke this right at any time and you agree to forfeit all rights.
      
      And there you go, small companies works are now 'protected' and they can sue just like the big boys.... because isn't that what we all want after all, to be able to just take money from other people when we think we deserve it....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimr (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:52am

Now that the 'Harper Government' has a majority they plan on doing what ever the hell they feel like.

They are spending money left and right will little or no oversight. Harper has made it clear is and his government are up for sale to the highest bidder, public citizens need not attempt anything. It is a government of Harper know best (as determined by the highest briber), even if goes against any and all proven scientific doctrine.

I do not know how he got a majority government as I do not know a single person who will admit voting for their party.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Paul Clark, 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:06am

Re: Have Fun With Them
If I win the lottery, I will have to have fun with this,

I have always wondered if a constitution challenge would work against copyright. Any one with a Christian, Judaic, or Islamic background has religions grounds to share their possessions. Anything that infringes on my ability to share my goods is an infringement of my religious rights and interferes with my religious practises.

That will be my argument anyway.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:37pm
  
  Re: Re: Have Fun With Them
  I hope you win. You'll make quite an impression sitting in the plaintiff's chair in the Supreme Court wearing your dunce cap.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:25am

We have had our consultation. They know the people are deadset against it, so they won't be doing that again. It only hurts their cause of screwing over canadians for fun and profit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
theDude, 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:34am

CANADA
They have enjoyed too much freedom and liberty in Canada for too long. Its time their conservatives make it a bit more like the US up there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Adam, 14 Sep 2011 @ 8:21am

Like any unfair law (and this one certainly will be that), it just criminalizes a large fraction of the population who will simply ignore it. Prohibition didn't work, the "war on drugs" hasn't worked, and this law won't work. If, for just a moment, we assume that the government is doing this to placate US demands and hopefully free up cross-border trade, then perhaps they actually know that this won't work any better here than it has anywhere else -- perhaps it's just a gesture.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 8:29am
  
  Re:
  From what the US has been bullying them with, this is far more than a gesture...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeffrey Nonken (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 10:38am

You know, a decades-old Gahan Wilson cartoon would fit right in here. Unfortunately it won't be part of our culture for at least another 70 years (seeing as how Mr. Wilson hasn't died yet), so unless you go out and buy his books, you can't see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 11:44am

To The RIAA & MPAA:

FUCK OFF AND DIE !!!
Come on over and lick my dog's ass clean you fuckin vultures.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 14 Sep 2011 @ 6:41pm
  
  Re:
  To The RIAA & MPAA:
  
  FUCK OFF AND DIE !!!
  Come on over and lick my dog's ass clean you fuckin vultures.
  
  Hahahahahahaha....another reasoned response from one of the faithful Techdirtbags.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Jay (profile), 14 Sep 2011 @ 7:25pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Says one AC to another...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 14 Sep 2011 @ 3:15pm

Will this pass
Is there any way on the face of the planet this won't pass now. If it does does that mean they have to stop selling blank CDs and DVDs what about backing up pictures u take with your camerA to a DVD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Mike, 14 Sep 2011 @ 3:15pm

Will this pass
Is there any way on the face of the planet this won't pass now. If it does does that mean they have to stop selling blank CDs and DVDs what about backing up pictures u take with your camerA to a DVD.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]