Hawkings former plumber
Posts: 8,698 
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
Videos: 1
Location: RR1 Distopia 666 Discordia Drive Apt 911
December 13th, 2007, 09:55 AM
American copyright, stay away from me
Why is the Harper government so keen on copyright changes that leading musicians don't want, and which restrict and criminalize legitimate consumer behaviour?
>by Wayne MacPhail
December 6, 2007
Thanks to Jim Prentice, Canada may be about to step one year forward, ten years back, at least as far as copyright law goes.
Any day now, Prentice, Canada's Industry Minister, is expected to table proposed changes to the Copyright Act in the House of Commons.
All bets are that the changes will bring our copyright law into line with U.S. regulations which have proven useless, expensive, foolhardy, restrictive and punitive to consumers.
Back in October, 1998, the U.S. introduced the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The act made it a crime to produce or distribute technology or services that could be used to break digital rights management locks on copyrighted material and beefed up penalties for copyright infringement.
It also made it possible for the American recording industry to sue musicians' fans including single moms, grandparents and teenagers. This is the business equivalent of the steroidal, mouth-breathing schoolyard bully beating the snot out of the skinny kid with taped glasses.
It also made it illegal for programmers to break encryption codes on DVD, software or CDs or to even discuss security breeches in public. Programmers have been jailed for both - even though the encryptions restrict legitimate use and even though security analysts increase security when they discuss flaws.
More importantly for the average citizen, it has taken away consumer rights from digital versions of materials (books, CDs) that can be more freely shared as physical objects.
And, as I discussed in an earlier column, the Digital Rights Management (DRM) that is at the heart of the Copyright Act has been shown to be useless and punishes ordinary, innocent citizens who just want free access to content they legally purchased. It is being abandoned by the record industry, even most recently by the classical and conservative label Deutsche Grammophon.
But, despite the flurry of mean-spirited, and fan-spiting lawsuits by the record labels, the stupidity of DRM, the foolish chilling of security analysts and the lack of proof that piracy is causing financial harm, Jim Prentice wants to introduce Canadian copyright legislation that repeats the gaffes and mirrors the language of the DMCA.
Why should you care?
Because the provisions of the new act could open Canadians to the same kinds of venal lawsuits American record companies have launched at home.
Because the provisions will supercede the more lenient users' rights of fair dealing we already enjoy. Right now, Canadians have a right to make use of a portion of copyright material for research or private study, for criticism or review or news reporting. Canadian case law has established that the interpretation of fair dealing should be broad. But, suppose that in the process of obtaining material for fair dealing, you have to copy a CD, rip a portion of a DVD or download a videoclip? You could become an infringer, even though you are entitled to make use of the content. The impact of this on critics, librarians, students and instructors is broad and worrisome.
Finally, because, in the near future, timeshifting television shows on a personal video recorder, ripping a CD or bypassing digital locks to get at content you bought so you can play it on other devices you own could be illegal. This is important, because, as I have pointed out before, when our possessions become digital, we shouldn't have to give up the rights we now have with physical objects.
If this sounds familiar it's because it should be. The former Liberal government tried to pass Bill C-60, with many of the same provisions. The bill effectively died last November when the Liberal government fell. Clearly, it was a rights-eating zombie that is reaching a mouldering hand from the grave, just in time for Christmas.
An interesting side note is that he bill's main fan was former MP Sarmite Bulte, who was beaten by the NDP's Peggy Nash in Parkdale - High Park, in part because of Bulte's campaign support from organizations from the beefier-copyright-restrictions lobby.
Last year, even Canadian musicians, including The Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne and Feist, made it clear they weren't interested in copyright changes that would make it easier for the RIAA or the CRIA (American and Canadian record industry alliances) to sue fans. They still feel the same way. Nettwerk Records, a progressive Canadian label, has parted ways with the CRIA over the issue.
So, why is the Harper government so keen on copyright changes that leading musicians don't want, and which restrict and criminalize legitimate consumer behaviour?
First, because of pressure from the U.S. government. As Deirdre McMurdy has reported in the Ottawa Citizen, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins has met with both Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner about the issue and clearly wants Canada to tow the American line.
Second, because of lobbying from U.S. and Canadian publishers, who have been loose with campaign funding for folks who they need in their camps.
Third, due to pressure from U.S. companies like Microsoft, who are tying Canadian job creation to tougher intellectual property controls.
Fourth, because Canada has ratified the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) treaty, though it has yet to implement it. However, an Ottawa-based copyright lawyer Howard Knopf points out, indications are that the proposed changes to Canada's copyright law go beyond what WIPO requires.
None of those reasons have much to do with consumers. They are all about the strength of lobbyists, the Harper government's desire to give the U.S. what it wants and to make Canada a doormat for American industry and its hamfisted, litigious ways.
Want to do something about it? You can join the new Fair Copyright group on Facebook to keep up with developments.
Better still, you can do 30 things, thanks to the excellent advocacy of Dr. Michael Giest. Giest is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa and has sounded the alarm on this issue for years. He's created a great list of actions you can take. First and foremost, write your MP and let him or her know how you feel.
When everything is moving to digital, we have to fight for our rights as consumers in a digital world. By the way, feel free to share this column wherever you like.
Wayne MacPhail is the president of w8nc inc, an emerging media communications company. He's also a rabble.ca board member who helped launch the rabble podcast network. Wayne writes a regular column on technology issues.
American copyright, stay away from me
Why is the Harper government so keen on copyright changes that leading musicians don't want, and which restrict and criminalize legitimate consumer behaviour?
>by Wayne MacPhail
December 6, 2007
Thanks to Jim Prentice, Canada may be about to step one year forward, ten years back, at least as far as copyright law goes.
Any day now, Prentice, Canada's Industry Minister, is expected to table proposed changes to the Copyright Act in the House of Commons.
All bets are that the changes will bring our copyright law into line with U.S. regulations which have proven useless, expensive, foolhardy, restrictive and punitive to consumers.
Back in October, 1998, the U.S. introduced the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA). The act made it a crime to produce or distribute technology or services that could be used to break digital rights management locks on copyrighted material and beefed up penalties for copyright infringement.
It also made it possible for the American recording industry to sue musicians' fans including single moms, grandparents and teenagers. This is the business equivalent of the steroidal, mouth-breathing schoolyard bully beating the snot out of the skinny kid with taped glasses.
It also made it illegal for programmers to break encryption codes on DVD, software or CDs or to even discuss security breeches in public. Programmers have been jailed for both - even though the encryptions restrict legitimate use and even though security analysts increase security when they discuss flaws.
More importantly for the average citizen, it has taken away consumer rights from digital versions of materials (books, CDs) that can be more freely shared as physical objects.
And, as I discussed in an earlier column, the Digital Rights Management (DRM) that is at the heart of the Copyright Act has been shown to be useless and punishes ordinary, innocent citizens who just want free access to content they legally purchased. It is being abandoned by the record industry, even most recently by the classical and conservative label Deutsche Grammophon.
But, despite the flurry of mean-spirited, and fan-spiting lawsuits by the record labels, the stupidity of DRM, the foolish chilling of security analysts and the lack of proof that piracy is causing financial harm, Jim Prentice wants to introduce Canadian copyright legislation that repeats the gaffes and mirrors the language of the DMCA.
Why should you care?
Because the provisions of the new act could open Canadians to the same kinds of venal lawsuits American record companies have launched at home.
Because the provisions will supercede the more lenient users' rights of fair dealing we already enjoy. Right now, Canadians have a right to make use of a portion of copyright material for research or private study, for criticism or review or news reporting. Canadian case law has established that the interpretation of fair dealing should be broad. But, suppose that in the process of obtaining material for fair dealing, you have to copy a CD, rip a portion of a DVD or download a videoclip? You could become an infringer, even though you are entitled to make use of the content. The impact of this on critics, librarians, students and instructors is broad and worrisome.
Finally, because, in the near future, timeshifting television shows on a personal video recorder, ripping a CD or bypassing digital locks to get at content you bought so you can play it on other devices you own could be illegal. This is important, because, as I have pointed out before, when our possessions become digital, we shouldn't have to give up the rights we now have with physical objects.
If this sounds familiar it's because it should be. The former Liberal government tried to pass Bill C-60, with many of the same provisions. The bill effectively died last November when the Liberal government fell. Clearly, it was a rights-eating zombie that is reaching a mouldering hand from the grave, just in time for Christmas.
An interesting side note is that he bill's main fan was former MP Sarmite Bulte, who was beaten by the NDP's Peggy Nash in Parkdale - High Park, in part because of Bulte's campaign support from organizations from the beefier-copyright-restrictions lobby.
Last year, even Canadian musicians, including The Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne and Feist, made it clear they weren't interested in copyright changes that would make it easier for the RIAA or the CRIA (American and Canadian record industry alliances) to sue fans. They still feel the same way. Nettwerk Records, a progressive Canadian label, has parted ways with the CRIA over the issue.
So, why is the Harper government so keen on copyright changes that leading musicians don't want, and which restrict and criminalize legitimate consumer behaviour?
First, because of pressure from the U.S. government. As Deirdre McMurdy has reported in the Ottawa Citizen, U.S. Ambassador David Wilkins has met with both Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner about the issue and clearly wants Canada to tow the American line.
Second, because of lobbying from U.S. and Canadian publishers, who have been loose with campaign funding for folks who they need in their camps.
Third, due to pressure from U.S. companies like Microsoft, who are tying Canadian job creation to tougher intellectual property controls.
Fourth, because Canada has ratified the WIPO (World Intellectual Property Organization) treaty, though it has yet to implement it. However, an Ottawa-based copyright lawyer Howard Knopf points out, indications are that the proposed changes to Canada's copyright law go beyond what WIPO requires.
None of those reasons have much to do with consumers. They are all about the strength of lobbyists, the Harper government's desire to give the U.S. what it wants and to make Canada a doormat for American industry and its hamfisted, litigious ways.
Want to do something about it? You can join the new Fair Copyright group on Facebook to keep up with developments.
Better still, you can do 30 things, thanks to the excellent advocacy of Dr. Michael Giest. Giest is the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa and has sounded the alarm on this issue for years. He's created a great list of actions you can take. First and foremost, write your MP and let him or her know how you feel.
When everything is moving to digital, we have to fight for our rights as consumers in a digital world. By the way, feel free to share this column wherever you like.
Wayne MacPhail is the president of w8nc inc, an emerging media communications company. He's also a rabble.ca board member who helped launch the rabble podcast network. Wayne writes a regular column on technology issues.
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
December 13th, 2007, 10:23 AM
To give some context to some of the ramifications of the DMCA, consider the following.
I currently own DVD's that were purchased in North America. While in Paris I borrowed French DVD's from a friend. This subsequently changed my regional settings to France. I went back to Canada, watched rented DVD's and had the regional setting changed back to Canada. Then went to France again and had it reset to France. Back to Canada, once more. I am currently in Germany. Were I to watch a German DVD, my DVD player would become permanently set to Germany and I would no longer be able to watch the DVD's which I own without "breaking the encryption". I legitimately own a DVD player, I legitimately own those DVD's, but I would no longer have legitmacy under the DMCA for watching the DVD's on that DVD player. I would have to buy new DVD's or a new DVD player. That, is completely bogus.
Next issue.
I own a playstation 2 which was purchased in Canada. I own some games which were purchased in Canada. I now reside in Germany. Shippers are not allowed to ship North American games to Europe, and a North American playstation will not play European games. If I want new games, I must purchase a new console before I can play the new games.
Third issue.
I recently purchased an electronic book on finite volume methods. Which basically contains methods for computationally solving certain problems. In any case, until I actually purchased this book it was not clear to me how crippled my usage of this book would be. I am forced to only read this book using Adobe Digital Editions. This program is currently buggy and not user friendly in the least, and most importantly: not available on Linux, where I do most of my programming and where I would need to be reading this book.
All of these cases are cases where I legitimately "own" a copy of some work but am prevented from legitimately enjoying it because of the assumption that I will subject it to piracy. I should be protected by law, the assumption should be that I will legitimately use these works and thus I should have access to full enjoyment of them. Instead of have nothing but headaches because of my insistence on following the law.
To give some context to some of the ramifications of the DMCA, consider the following.
I currently own DVD's that were purchased in North America. While in Paris I borrowed French DVD's from a friend. This subsequently changed my regional settings to France. I went back to Canada, watched rented DVD's and had the regional setting changed back to Canada. Then went to France again and had it reset to France. Back to Canada, once more. I am currently in Germany. Were I to watch a German DVD, my DVD player would become permanently set to Germany and I would no longer be able to watch the DVD's which I own without "breaking the encryption". I legitimately own a DVD player, I legitimately own those DVD's, but I would no longer have legitmacy under the DMCA for watching the DVD's on that DVD player. I would have to buy new DVD's or a new DVD player. That, is completely bogus.
Next issue.
I own a playstation 2 which was purchased in Canada. I own some games which were purchased in Canada. I now reside in Germany. Shippers are not allowed to ship North American games to Europe, and a North American playstation will not play European games. If I want new games, I must purchase a new console before I can play the new games.
Third issue.
I recently purchased an electronic book on finite volume methods. Which basically contains methods for computationally solving certain problems. In any case, until I actually purchased this book it was not clear to me how crippled my usage of this book would be. I am forced to only read this book using Adobe Digital Editions. This program is currently buggy and not user friendly in the least, and most importantly: not available on Linux, where I do most of my programming and where I would need to be reading this book.
All of these cases are cases where I legitimately "own" a copy of some work but am prevented from legitimately enjoying it because of the assumption that I will subject it to piracy. I should be protected by law, the assumption should be that I will legitimately use these works and thus I should have access to full enjoyment of them. Instead of have nothing but headaches because of my insistence on following the law.
Grossly Underrated
Posts: 4,730
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
Location: In the bush somewhere near Sudbury
December 13th, 2007, 10:36 AM
A Canadian copyright is recognized in every country in the free world EXCEPT the United States - where the material must be registered with the Library of Congress. If the changes make my material safe from cross-border plunder, I'm all for them.
Woof!
A Canadian copyright is recognized in every country in the free world EXCEPT the United States - where the material must be registered with the Library of Congress. If the changes make my material safe from cross-border plunder, I'm all for them.
Woof!
A modern nomad
Posts: 1,118
Location: Berlin, Germany
Location: Berlin, Germany
December 13th, 2007, 10:54 AM
Quoting lone wolf
In fact it is the USA that is pushing the "Copyright without registration" model, generally through the Berne convention. In all parties to the Berne convention, copyright is automatic and never requires registration. Many people still hold the belief that one must register a creative work to receive copyright protection, this is false in almost all countries. Registering a copyright instead offers prima facie evidence in court of a copyright.
A Canadian copyright is recognized in every country in the free world EXCEPT the United States - where the material must be registered with the Library of Congress. If the changes make my material safe from cross-border plunder, I'm all for them.
Woof!
Woof!
