Neither Minister Prentice nor Minister Vernier understands the digital technology they are legislating out of the hands of millions of Canadians. I doubt Prentice has used an iPod more than a little, and would probably curse a blue streak if he ever got a computer virus and formatted. He’d not know how to (or would not be legally allowed to) save his DRM’ed (locked) music.
He’s encouraging Digital Restrictions Management (digitally locked) as the standard format for digital work. There is no incentive for artists to not use DRM, should this law pass. Think about it: If your copyright is infringed, you can only seek $500 damages if you did not DRM your work. If you have put DRM on a CD, DVD, or download, then you can get $20,000 in damages awarded to you in a case of infringement. That’s 40 times more money at your theoretical fingertips!
Vernier using “download” for “upload” was not an english/french language barrier, it’s a technology one. These people are not competent to write a bill that is technology based.
Also, why is the same protection of “digital locking” not provided in the analog world to creators who can’t digitally lock their content? A painter can copyright a work, but they only get $500, not $20,000 if they sue someone! How does that “protect” or “balance” anything among creators?
–
Hat tip to Alberta: Get Rich or Die Trying
Canadian creators see how this bill harms them too:
It’s anti-constitutional, and not Canadian.
==
If the Conservatives survive another session of Parliament, Bill C-61 will be among the scandals that they will have to face up to.
–
Hat tip to POGGE
@hotmail.com
![[EFC Blue Ribbon - Free Speech Online]](http://www.efc.ca/images/efcfreet.gif)
Lord Kitchener's Own | 23-Jun-08 at 1:17 pm | Permalink
“If you have put DRM on a CD, DVD, or download, then you can get $20,000 in damages awarded to you in a case of infringement”.
It’s worse than that Sask. You don’t need to infringe someone’s copyright under the new Bill to be libel for a $20,000 judgment, just circumventing the DRM will get you hit. Even if you circumvent the DRM for non-infringing purposes (like you want to play your totally legal iTunes music on a Microsoft player, or you want to change the file format to compress your files and save space) you’re facing a $20,000 bill.
The new bill doesn’t say “messing with the DRM software in order to infringe copyright” is illegal, it says “messing with the DRM software”, period, is illegal.
Professor Michael Geist did a whole serious of “a week in the life of” posts that showed just how many ways this law will make criminals out of ordinary Canadians trying to do ordinary (and non-copyright infringing) things.
It’s a horrible Bill as far as I can see, and I hope it dies a relatively quick death.
Saskboy | 23-Jun-08 at 1:27 pm | Permalink
“The new bill doesn’t say “messing with the DRM software in order to infringe copyright” is illegal, it says “messing with the DRM software”, period, is illegal.”
I know, but this bill would make messing with DRM a form of copyright infringement, no? Anyway, that’s what I’d meant, but it was worth it for you to point out the distinction anyway for people who are still unclear about the absurdity of this bill. The bottom line is that it makes a crime out of every-day, innocent, and harmless use of media.
ScruffyDan | 23-Jun-08 at 2:49 pm | Permalink
Don’t forget Sask that any time you play a legally purchased DVD on you linux machine you will be liable for 20 000. It shouldn’t be to much to ask that politicians only regulate matters they themselves are familiar with
Lore_Weaver | 23-Jun-08 at 3:44 pm | Permalink
I had a commentator on my blog express the need to have technically ubiquitous language that defines alleged illegal activity.
Thus, when fair use issues come up in the future, whatever bill we have can be clearly interpreted.
One thing he mentioned was that we should target people who distribute for financial gain. I wholeheartedly agree.
I firmly believe, however, that there should be no DRM provision in the legislation, and that we should let the free market decide on DRM.
Publishers should be free to drive people to piracy, if they’re retarded enough to do so (like they are today). Legitimizing DRM with legislation removes free market from the equation and motivates companies to put spyware in to see if you need to be sued.
It’ll be a dark day indeed when you have co-DRM software… and legislation like this will be abused to a degree most people can’t fathom.
(I’m talking about a DRM methodology that doesn’t just check to see if the product itself has been pirated, but if other products on your machine have been cracked. You pirate 10 things, buy one, and get nailed because that one called home)
It’s being developed now. It’s not gonna be pretty for consumers.
Saskboy | 23-Jun-08 at 4:10 pm | Permalink
Well said Lore, and Dan.
The fact about DVDs on Linux is not lost on me, and for that reason alone this bill is one of the biggest threats to information freedom I’ve ever seen.
“One thing he mentioned was that we should target people who distribute for financial gain. I wholeheartedly agree.”
And I too agree, with the caveat that “financial gain” should be defined as what people make from selling copies, not “gain” as in money not spent on using a copy. Punish the distributors who profit from fakes, not the consumers who download/borrow/time shift/device shift or copy information. This would remove liability from people who are tricked into buying a counterfeit
$20,000 is adequate punishment for those caught with counterfeiting operations; or possibly a higher fine if that would not be enough to deter professional organizations from setting up here over elsewhere.) However, this bill goes after small time copy operations that are more about fun, rebelliousness, and experimentation, than they are to get rich off of someone else’s creations.
Lore_Weaver | 23-Jun-08 at 5:16 pm | Permalink
I don’t like the terminology of “time shifting” or “device shifting” because it’s too vague with reference to future devices and methods, which will leave us arguing this again in ten years or less.
Joseph | 24-Jun-08 at 2:41 pm | Permalink
I fear for the makers of software like “flip4mac”
Don’t they - and their clients - realize that little innocuous programs that enable you to view legally posted video clips may soon be chargeable offenses.
I’m joking but it does make you wonder, as sloppy as the language in the bill is currently.