How the new Canadian Copyright bill fails Canadians

Posted on June 13, 2008 by Thomas Purves

As reported everywhere, Canada’s industry minister introduced a new copyright bill yesterday. And it’s no good. However, assuming we need “reform” at all, there are simple changes that could go a long way to fixing it.

The most important of these would be a qualifier on “anti-circumvention”. In the current bill, any circumvention is automatically an infringement no matter the purpose, no matter how trivial the circumvention. Why anti-circumvention provisions are necessary at all is a dubious proposition to begin with. However, if we must have make this simple change: make circumvention only a crime if done for the purposes of infringement.

The way the bill is written now it gives media owners, and anyone who encrypts anything carte-blanche to over-ride all fair-dealings exceptions build into the copyright act.

Meanwhile the so-called “reductions” in penalties to infringers are fairly ridiculous. The “limited to” $500 penalties are per infringement. Any kid with a thousand song ipod theoretically liable for up to $500,000. Jesse Hirsh has put it well, describing the new legislation as criminalizing a generation of Canadians.

Why do we need “long overdue” copyright reform in Canada at all? Look at what the last 10 years shown us in, for example, the record industry. It’s shown us a steep decline in the revenues to top-40 manufactured hits and warmed over franchise brands pushed through old mainstream channels. Meanwhile the total amount, quality and variation of independent media and music has absolutely skyrocketed.

In the last ten years, the music industry has at last stepped away from it’s failed experiment with technical protection measures. Amazon, Itunes, emusic, zunior (in Canada) and every major label are all now offering DRM-free options. Why are we enshrining protection for these technologies based on 10-year old assumptions of how the industry would evolve?

The good news is that the bill has only reached it’s first reading and there will be time for revisions before the second reading in the fall. It’s important that you make your voice heard. Get behind the facebook group, keep an eye on Micheal Geist, and talk to your MP.

Jim Prentice was once known as a populist. He may find sense yet. There is still time for our country to take off the proverbial knee-pads and step away from the US media industry lobby.

This entry was posted in Archive, copyright, drm and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

14 Responses to How the new Canadian Copyright bill fails Canadians

  1. Ken Seto says:
    June 13, 2008 at 5:30 pm

    Well said. It’s sad to see how out of touch our government is and how easily they fold to pressures from across the border.

    I really hope the Liberals get off their collective butts and actually vote against this bill. Their fear of an election is paralyzing them into spineless cowards.

    Here’s a link (from copyrightforcanadians.ca) to a pre-filled letter form that can be used to send an email to Jim Prentice and your MP regarding this bill:

    Letter to Jim

  2. Ken Seto says:
    June 13, 2008 at 9:30 am

    Well said. It’s sad to see how out of touch our government is and how easily they fold to pressures from across the border.

    I really hope the Liberals get off their collective butts and actually vote against this bill. Their fear of an election is paralyzing them into spineless cowards.

    Here’s a link (from copyrightforcanadians.ca) to a pre-filled letter form that can be used to send an email to Jim Prentice and your MP regarding this bill:

    Letter to Jim

  3. Libin Pan says:
    June 13, 2008 at 7:06 pm

    Jesse Hirsh has put it well, describing the new legislation as criminalizing a generation of Canadians.

    Thanks Tom!

    Is the facebook group linking to:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6315846683

  4. Libin Pan says:
    June 13, 2008 at 11:06 am

    Jesse Hirsh has put it well, describing the new legislation as criminalizing a generation of Canadians.

    Thanks Tom!

    Is the facebook group linking to:
    http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=6315846683

  5. Jesse Hirsh says:
    June 13, 2008 at 10:20 pm

    Hey Tom, thanks for the reference. I’ve taken a recording of this morning’s CBC interview and have turned it into a youtube video: http://jessehirsh.com/the-clash-over-copyright

  6. Jesse Hirsh says:
    June 13, 2008 at 2:20 pm

    Hey Tom, thanks for the reference. I’ve taken a recording of this morning’s CBC interview and have turned it into a youtube video: http://jessehirsh.com/the-clash-over-copyright

  7. foo says:
    June 13, 2008 at 11:51 pm

    Meanwhile the so-called “reductions” in penalties to infringers are fairly ridiculous. The “limited to” $500 penalties are per infringement.

    That is not my reading of the bill. To wit,

    (1.3) If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1) in respect of a defendant referred to in subsection (1.1), no other copyright owner may elect statutory damages in respect of that defendant for the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes before the institution of the proceedings in which the election was made.

  8. foo says:
    June 13, 2008 at 3:51 pm

    Meanwhile the so-called “reductions” in penalties to infringers are fairly ridiculous. The “limited to” $500 penalties are per infringement.

    That is not my reading of the bill. To wit,

    (1.3) If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1) in respect of a defendant referred to in subsection (1.1), no other copyright owner may elect statutory damages in respect of that defendant for the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes before the institution of the proceedings in which the election was made.

  9. foo says:
    June 13, 2008 at 11:56 pm

    Also this (emphasis added)

    (1.1) If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1), a defendant who is an individual is liable for statutory damages of $500 in respect of all the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes and that are involved in the proceedings.

  10. foo says:
    June 13, 2008 at 3:56 pm

    Also this (emphasis added)

    (1.1) If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1), a defendant who is an individual is liable for statutory damages of $500 in respect of all the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes and that are involved in the proceedings.

  11. Thomas Purves says:
    June 17, 2008 at 1:10 am

    Thanks foo I think your reading is right here.

    There is an issue however that in the case of DRM’d media the penalties escalate to $20,000.

  12. Thomas Purves says:
    June 16, 2008 at 5:10 pm

    Thanks foo I think your reading is right here.

    There is an issue however that in the case of DRM’d media the penalties escalate to $20,000.

  13. foo says:
    June 18, 2008 at 10:41 pm

    There is an issue however that in the case of DRM’d media the penalties escalate to $20,000.

    Yeah, the bill is essentially wrapped in a big ‘if’ clause. If the
    copyright holder doesn’t want you to exercise such and such a
    exception then you may not. So they essentially have to give you
    permission to exercise any of the exceptions. Which is the state of
    affairs before the bill. So what did the government grant to consumers
    exactly?

  14. foo says:
    June 18, 2008 at 2:41 pm

    There is an issue however that in the case of DRM’d media the penalties escalate to $20,000.

    Yeah, the bill is essentially wrapped in a big ‘if’ clause. If the
    copyright holder doesn’t want you to exercise such and such a
    exception then you may not. So they essentially have to give you
    permission to exercise any of the exceptions. Which is the state of
    affairs before the bill. So what did the government grant to consumers
    exactly?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *