For example, phone unlocking is explicitly permitted, according to that summary and contrary to the blog.
The linked Michael Geist post says that lobby groups are pushing for scarier things, but not that they are already in the bill.
"29.23 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to fix a communication signal, to reproduce a work or sound recording that is being broadcast or to fix or reproduce a performer’s performance that is being broadcast, in order to record a program for the purpose of listening to or viewing it later, if:
(c) the individual makes no more than one recording of the program;
(d) the individual keeps the recording no longer than is reasonably necessary in order to listen to or view the program at a more convenient time;" http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Doc...
So now, if you have two TVs and PVRs, you can only record you show on one of them. Secondly, as soon as you watch it, you have to delete it.
Another problem is that while it allows backup copies, recordings etc., if there is a protection method on the media to prevent this, it becomes illegal to to backup or record the item. I can guarantee that companies will start putting DRM, just to take advantage of this clause, effectively making it as though the clauses that allows backups do not exist at all.
But really, what's going on is Canadians having absolutely no confidence in our government not caving into pressure with regards to copyright laws, both from entertainment industry (foreign and domestic), as well as the American government. And we do so cause we have absolutely no reason to have confidence in them. So when we hear that industry wants X, Y and Z added, and oh ho, there happens to be some rumblings of American government pressure, we just assume the worse (and I really think we should), and flip our shit.
The C-11 as is really just the same copyright reform act that died the last few times as elections rolled around. As is, it contains some needed reform, and overall, if not for the absolutely forbidden nature of removing DRM, wouldn't actually be that bad.
But we're easily startled now. And so it is.
There is even a very honest description of this history and interests of the Act here:
The problem with having a knee-jerk reaction without understanding why is that there are real problems with the Act.
All the exceptions (backup, time-shifting, format shifting) are excluded if the copyright holder puts a digital lock on the content.
Also, there is a change to outlaw services that are designed primarily to enable acts of copyright infringement, which will be expensive for the industries to sort out in the courts.
If you spoke to your MP and Senator with specific and reasonable concerns and suggestions, you're more likely to affect change.
> Hey, do you want to be able to unlock your $500 smartphone and take it to a provider less dedicated to violating your wallet? That won’t be allowed either.
So unless the author means that the joint action of unlocking and then taking it to another provider is prohibited, or just taking it to another provider is prohibited, but the author threw in unlocking because it is likely to accompany it, I think the blog is stating that unlocking a smartphone is not permitted.
Canada has always had more liberal copyright laws than the US, and I expect that to continue. You don't hear about a Canadian being sued for $20 million for downloading a few songs on Limewire.
The success of the SOPA protests is both a blessing and a curse. I'm starting to notice a trend. Every day/week we're going to have to read about something being "the next SOPA".
Your'e far more trusting of this current government then I. It would fit into their message on "getting tough on crime" to have more restrictions on technology, to the point of having many actions that we take for granted now being outlawed.
I get the tagging of every little thing being "the next SOPA" is diluting the message, and agree with your point, but from the current governments track record, I wouldn't trust them on this line of legislation as far as I could throw them. Especially as this isn't the first time they've tried to pass such legislation.
My favourite podcast to keep up on the latest developments:
I see now that they have made it illegal to break a digital lock ("technical protection measure") in all circumstances because of the WIPO Internet treaties. A previous version of bill made it only illegal to break a digital lock to facilitate an infringement, which is a reasonable balance in my opinion.
I'm not convinced of the argument that the WIPO Internet treaties a) matter that much, b) say that. The technical measures are only to protect a copyright holders "rights", but if the copyright law of the land does not recognize a right where such right limits fair dealing (which is identified in the WIPO treaties), then there are no such rights to protect in the first place, and therefore the technical measures clauses don't have standing.
Therefore, reverting to Bill C-60 would be the right thing to do.
Now to draft a letter to my MP and Senator.
In a majority government situation (as is the current case) it can have the affect that if the Prime Minister wants the legislation passed then all party members will be instructed to vote for it and it will pass. An MP disobeying the party is a controversial event. In the USA we saw support for SOPA/PIPA drain away as individual members of the house/senate abandoned support, but I feel that that situation is less likely to happen in Canada.
Most of the votes have the Conservative majority solidly on one side and everyone else on the other. It's nearly impossible to stop or alter legislation that Mr. Harper wants passed.
The concept of a MP is almost pointless because they are usually not representing their constituents. For controversial issues like C-11, ACTA, etc all party members are usually forced to vote a certain way when these issues are the ones were disent is actually the best possible thing for a truly democratic society.
It would be interesting to see what would happen if you didn't identify the party the candidate was associated with on the ballet and no one at the polling station was allowed to provide this information. Would people vote less? Would they actually learn about the candidates more?
Send a letter to your representative at Ottawa.
Looks like defeating US SOPA was the easy bit, and SOPA supporters knew it. What does the US need SOPA for if every one else implements it?
What is pretty sad is that the world community supported the anti US SOPA movement, but no big players in the US want to support all those other countries who supported them. Where are google and wikipedia on the upcoming EU laws, for example? Will they black out European or Canadian users for 24hrs?
Well, if each threatened country does not get world community support and implements its version of SOPA, then its was all for nothing.
Cant help but think that 2012 will be an Armageddon of sorts after all. A virtual one.
Please help us out of this mess, we don't have a Google or Wikipedia to go dark for us. We need all the help we can get...
This bill is no different. We should fight not for just our own countries, but for a free and open internet.