Bill C-11 could bring SOPA-like piracy laws to Canada

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/bill-c11-could-bring-sopa-online-piracy-laws-212657243.html

by noinput • 14 years ago

123 33 14 years ago

ca.news.yahoo.com

pyre2• 14 years ago

Yahoo keeps redirecting me to their mobile news site, even when I click the link to this article from a Google search. I always end up at: http://m.yahoo.com/w/news_america?.intl=ca&.lang=en-CA

Anyone else having this issue? (Running Chromium on Ubuntu 11.04)

Note: ca.news.yahoo.com and news.yahoo.ca by themselves are also redirecting me to that URL.

noinput• 14 years ago

here's the plain text article for anyone having that issue (links stripped): http://pastebin.com/a8VkZkm7

pyre2• 14 years ago

I'll note that I'm not having the issue at work. Possibly my home IP is flagged as mobile. (I don't think it's a cookie, as I had the same issue using Incognito Mode in Chromium)

cnorgate• 14 years ago

We need everyone to stand united across all borders against this kind of BS legislation. If Canada somehow lets this pass it creates a dangerous precedent for future US developments.

This affects us all.

amackera2• 14 years ago

Unfortunately there's not a whole lot we can do (speaking as a Canadian). There's a majority government in power that can basically do whatever they want.

The only hope we have is to protest this law publicly to the point where they alter it further (C-11 is already and altered version of the much more draconian C-31).

nkassis2• 14 years ago

I was going to say essentially the same thing. My MP is already in the Opposition so I can't really do much here to fight this but if there was a protest I would try to participate.

It's was obvious that as soon as a majority government would come to power this bill would go through (Regardless of which party was the majority in my view)

sunir3• 14 years ago

That's not true at all or even how Canada usually works. The bill is very balanced because it has been years in the making, taking consultation from many sides. It also hasn't passed the Senate yet as far as I understand. Write your MP and your Senator about it.

Here is the Parliamentary summary of this bill's history, which is very well written. It should give you greater faith in our system.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/41/1/...

unavoidable• 14 years ago

The primary difference between American and Canadian copyright law is that although the new bill implements DMCA-and SOPA-like provisions, the safe harbour clauses for ISPs are somewhat more lenient.

Whereas the DMCA mandates a notice-and-takedown scheme, Canadian legislatures have preferred to adopt a "Canadian" solution of notice-and-notice, which means that ISPs and hosting providers have more immunity by giving notice to their customers.

Unfortunately, this is a double-edged sword. Although service providers have greater immunity, thus less threatening to the structure of the internet, consumers are more likely to be given up by said providers, because there are less incentives for companies to defend such actions (since it requires far less costs and actions on their part to give notice rather than to take down infringing material).

wyck2• 14 years ago

IN depth site , http://www.michaelgeist.ca/

bryanlarsen• 14 years ago

It would be nice if Wikipedia, Reddit and Google did a day of protest for this just like they did for SOPA. Please redirect to a protest page for Canadian IP addresses.

wyck2• 14 years ago

Craigslist and identi.ca as well.

nvk• 14 years ago

I wish the people in the Media in Canada did more for Tech.

cperciva6• 14 years ago

Calling C-11 "SOPA-like" is rather a stretch. Some groups want to make it SOPA-like, but the current text is very much more in line with DMCA.

Also, Canada really needs an updated copyright law. Right now VCRs are still illegal.

redthrowaway3• 14 years ago

>right now vcrs are still illegal

Link? Whatever kind of illegal they might be, it's not the kind that stops stores from selling hem or people from buying them. I'm highly suspicious of this claim.

cperciva6• 14 years ago

Ok, technically VCRs are legal, it's just using them which is illegal.

The first relevant link Google found is this: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/1427/195/

RyanMcGreal2• 14 years ago

> Also, Canada really needs an updated copyright law.

We need an updated copyright law that isn't broken. The blanket ban on breaking digital locks in C-11 (no exceptions for fair dealing, privacy, personal use etc.) is fundamentally wrong and would likely not survive a constitutional challenge, but the government flatly refuses to reconsider it.

sunir3• 14 years ago

It's possible the government wants to ratify a broken bill to satisfy their treaty rights to the WTO, with the hope and expectation it will be squashed by the courts soon after. Canada gets the law that makes sense without the associated trade sanctions. The cost is several years and several million dollars fighting it out in court.

sha90• 14 years ago

The only thing wrong with C-11 as it stands currently are the digital lock provisions. Everything else in the bill is rather liberal, and, frankly, some of the provisions are outright good for Canadians (limits on fines, ISP liability exemptions, educational use exemptions, "mashup" exemptions). Calling for protests against the bill in its entirety is ignorant and blaming "the majority government" for passing draconian laws is outright sensationalist and false. That's not really how we do things here in Canada. There's a better way to get things done, and it doesn't involve hyperbole.

Yes, the digital locks portions of the bill could use some reworking-- but as mentioned, the enforceability of the law as its codified now is questionable, so I wonder how big of a deal it would actually be for the law to be passed as is. Remember, as pointed out, use of VCRs is also technically illegal, but you don't see any enforcement of that. The issue surrounding digital locks may very well have the same practical effect. We should certainly try to get these provisions changed before they are codified, but IMO it's not really the end of the world.

Yes, there is going to be a lot of push from powerful lobbyists to get "SOPA-like" provisions into the bill. However that is a reason to remain vigilant, not a reason to pre-emptively black out the internet again. As it stands, those additions have yet to be added to the bill, so right now, the lobbying power hasn't done very much. Maybe it's just me, but I'm not the type to start blaming people for things that haven't happened yet. I'm going to watch and wait until there is something reminiscent of SOPA in this bill, which may or may not happen.

FYI for those who are just jumping on the bus because SOPA is in the title of this article, please read a bit on the issue before injecting your opinion or outrage. Michael Geist is a good and well respected source on this issue. He's come out (more or less) in favour of the bill, minus his open objections to the digital locks portions, which I pointed out above. However, his general approval should say something about the bill-- Geist probably knows a lot more about copyright law in Canada than anyone here does. His comments regarding C-32 (now C-11) can be found in this rather old posting: http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5316/125/

sunir3• 14 years ago

I'm working on a letter to my MP and Senator to fix the digital lock issue. This is the argument I'm fleshing out. Feedback is appreciated:

Regarding digital locks, in an earlier version of the bill called C-60, they had the completely reasonable position that circumventing digital locks would only infringe if the circumvention was done to further an infringing act. If you broke the lock to exercise your fair dealing rights, that would not be infringement.

The WIPO lawyers argued that wasn't the intention of the Internet treaties we signed, but I think that's bullshit. A marketing campaign after the fact about the possible intention of the law doesn't matter; only what's written and how it would be reasonably interpreted to achieve its stated aims.

The WIPO treaties explicitly allow for fair dealing and fair use restrictions on the rights granted to copyright holders. Further, they only demand that digital locks are protected to enforce rights of the copyright holders.

However, clearly the rights of the copyright holders are limited by the fair dealing provisions (1), and therefore the digital locks don't need to be enforced where they prevent non-infringing uses.

(1) If you don't get this, it's important to remember that rights and freedoms are never unlimited. We have freedom of expression in Canada, but that is reasonably limited when that expression causes harm to society, such as yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theatre or hate speech or even reporting election results early. The full right isn't the one paragraph that grants "freedom of expression" in the Charter, but that paragraph limited by the reasonable restrictions around it.

Similarly, copyrights are not the simple paragraph descriptions like "right to control copies", but the full right as limited by fair dealing.

Therefore, when WIPO only asks for enforcement of digital locks that protect the rights of copyright holders, that requirement is limited by fair dealing.

Bill C-11 could bring SOPA-like piracy laws to Canada

Related Stories