The new law will require ISP's to act as an agent for the government by monitoring and reporting your activity on the web. This is where the charter violation comes in. they will have to track everything you do and let the feds have complete access to all the records.
That is an invasion of privacy.
ISPs already spy on you; some have been known to go as far as throttling users that access certain types of data, i.e. that the ISP disagrees with.
I skimmed through the document so maybe I missed something but all I could find that implies what you've said is found in Paragraph 41.25. That would require the owner of the website hosting the copyright-protected data to hold on to info about the user who uploaded the data...
if the copyright holder makes a formal complaint. It's possible that the ISP would also be required to divulge info on their client if requested by authorities.
The wording in these cheesy documents--and Law in general--is so inevitably open-ended that it really comes down to how it's interpreted. The potential for legitimizing a digital Orwellian nightmare down the road could be hidden in there and you'd never realize it until it was too late.
Just FYI - My wife and I have a colletion of aver 1200 DVDs all purchased legally and have copied most of them onto an external hard drive for convenience in selecting and watching movies. This would, under the new legislation cost me up to $5000 per movie if anyone wanted to prosecute.
From the Bill C-32 Parliamentary document:
Reproduction for private purposes
29.22 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to reproduce a work or other subject-matter or any substantial part of a work or other subject-matter if
(a) the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made is not an infringing copy;
(b) the individual legally obtained the copy of the work or other subject-matter from which the reproduction is made, other than by borrowing it or renting it, and owns or is authorized to use the medium or device on which it is reproduced;
(c) the individual, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection measure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented;
(d) the individual does not give the reproduction away; and
(e) the reproduction is used only for private purposes.
The following seems a bit redundant to me considering the above but it also applies:
Backup copies
29.24 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright in a work or other subject-matter for a person who owns — or has a licence to use — a copy of the work or subject-matter (in this section referred to as the “source copy”) to reproduce the source copy if
(a) the person does so solely for backup purposes in case the source copy is lost, damaged or otherwise rendered unusable;
(b) the source copy is not an infringing copy;
(c) the person, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection meas- ure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented; and
(d) the person does not give any of the reproductions away.
There are other Sections but the part that applies to you is Subsection (c) of each Paragraph. Existing Canadian law entitles you to make a copy for personal use, so clearly there's a conflict.
For most, this is a non-issue; get a decent copying app to "circumvent" the protection and use the copy to prevent wear on the original. Absolutely nobody cares so long as you bought the original. Main problem is that, from what I can tell, the Bill penalizes people who provide the
means to circumvent.
The Bill targets illegal distribution, particularly over the internet. It just so happens that the original has to be bought (or stolen) before copies can be made and then distributed, hence the above necessary paragraph.
People will pay for what they want....But shouldn't be expected to pay,or gouged, for what they don't...
And won't ..:wink:
That argument is used by all these P2P guys: it doesn't follow. If you don't like something, you don't buy it. If you do like something (i.e. appreciate the creator's work), then you buy it. If they overcharge, you don't buy it until they drop prices. But if you pirate it, you're saying that you appreciate the work but aren't willing to support the person who did the work, i.e. the high record label/producer charges are a moot point because the artist still gets a cut, albeit usually a much smaller one, meaning you're still stealing from the artist.
My point is that you can't justify copyright infringement that easily. Yes the proposed law is draconian, but that doesn't make piracy any less immoral (unless it's a necessity, in which case pirate away).
