
Bill C-11 could bring SOPA-like piracy laws to Canada - noinput
http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/right-click/bill-c11-could-bring-sopa-online-piracy-laws-212657243.html
======
sha90
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/>

~~~
sunir
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.

------
cperciva
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.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
> 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.

~~~
sunir
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.

~~~
RyanMcGreal
The thing is, we don't need a blanket ban on digital lock breaking to satisfy
the WIPO treaty (I assume that's what you mean). The C-11 model of 'balance'
leans heavily on:

* Content owners voluntarily making their content available (e.g. the 'permission culture' among academics);

* Content available in multiple formats, some of which may not have digital locks;

* The ability for government apparatus to regulate exceptions on the fly; and

* The government's insistence that it would be highly unlikely for a digital lock violation based on fair dealing to result in damages.

Essentially, the government's position is: _trust us!_ I don't.

Other countries have passed laws that put them into compliance with WIPO and
still maintain reasonable exceptions to break digital locks for valid reasons
of fair use/dealing, privacy and so on.

Note: I've seen legal arguments suggesting that C-11 forbids breaking digital
locks that function as _access controls_ but does not forbid breaking digital
locks that function as _copy controls_. In other words, it's illegal to hack a
paywall so that you can read protected content, but it's not illegal to enable
right-clicking to copy content to which you have legal access.

IANAL but I can already see a problem with this: if the same digital lock
serves both functions, it is impossible to carry out the latter without also
violating the former.

------
unavoidable
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).

------
cnorgate
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.

~~~
amackera
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).

~~~
nkassis
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)

~~~
adamrmcd
Must be nice, I wish the NDPs would have a breakout here in Alberta. The MP
from my riding is in power, and supports C-11 with statements like, "I'm not
an Internet expert in this, but..."

Any efforts of writing or contacting him on this topic (or any) are gleefully
ignored.

What really frustrates me is that the Conservatives were voted in thanks the
rural farmers and retirees _who actually got out to vote_ in my province. Here
in my central Alberta riding in 2011, the CONs got 75% of the vote, but only
30% voted!

And thanks to this, the entire country is forced to follow our PM's indelible
path. Even though the majority of people didn't actually vote for him.

Now Canadians are embarrassed on the world stage by C-11, and stuff like this:

* <http://www.sorryworld.ca/>

* <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkhRjFn5uqU>

~~~
skylan_q
"What really frustrates me is that the Conservatives were voted in thanks the
rural farmers and retirees who actually got out to vote in my province."

A big part of it was that they won the immigrant/new Canadian vote in Ontario.
The values of these groups are much more in line with the Cons than the Libs.
Peoples from the Eastern Bloc would never vote NDP because they've experienced
similar politics already.

<http://www.sorryworld.ca/> assumes that all those things listed are "good
things" or that they make Canada "awesome". That' a matter of opinion, and I
disagree with a lot of those things. I'm not proud that cats and dogs get
better medical treatment here than humans. :(

Either way, C-11 needs to die.

~~~
adamrmcd
See the Conservatives had to actually work to get voted in Ontario. They see
being elected in Alberta as a entitlement.

Other parties don't even put in any major campaign resources out here anymore:
The Liberal name has been tarnished ever since the NEP/Trudeau, and the NDP
spend what little cash they have in ridings they'll actually have a chance.

I agree with you about <http://www.sorryworld.ca>, not every point embodies
everyone's values, although you have to admit the world's perception of Canada
has degraded drastically since the Conservatives have come to (true) power.

Bill C-11... the oil-sands PR mess.. and now banning trans-genders from
flying[1]... The Conservatives are just cashing in their blank cheque.

[1] [http://chrismilloy.ca/2012/01/transgender-people-are-
complet...](http://chrismilloy.ca/2012/01/transgender-people-are-completely-
banned-from-boarding-airplanes-in-canada/)

------
bryanlarsen
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.

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

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

------
wyck
IN depth site , <http://www.michaelgeist.ca/>

