Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Canada Is About To Pass Sopa’s Evil Little Brother. Politely (dearthey.com)
148 points by DanielRibeiro on Jan 28, 2012 | hide | past | web | favorite | 28 comments

Is there a better source of analysis on this bill? The summary posted here does not seem to be nearly as bad as this blog is making it out to be:


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.

One problem with this bill is that recording, lets say on your PVR, is not allowed for a long time. Here is the relevant section:

"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.

Ok, I take it back. There are anti-circumvention exceptions to all the new fair use rights, effectively inverting them. So the bill says "you have the right to use copyright works in such and such a way, unless the rights holder says otherwise", which is obviously the same as not having those rights at all.

Don't think the blog said phone unlocking is not permitted.

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.

You don't have to assume anything. The Act is publicly accessible. You can read it yourself.

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.

> Don't think the blog said phone unlocking is not permitted.

> 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.

I'm a Canadian too, and even reading Michael Geist's blog, this bill doesn't sound scary.

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".

"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."

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.

I always thought that Canada's fair dealing was more restrictive than America's fair use.

Fair use does not exist in Canadian law.

My favourite podcast to keep up on the latest developments: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Search_Engine_(radio_show)

Having read fully the exceptionally well written legislative summary,


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.

I feel like a big part of the reason this will pass in Canada is because they don't have as many large tech companies vocally opposed to said bill.

Another very significant reason is that in Canada party discipline for Members of Parliament is heavily enforced.

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.

The voting history of MPs in Canada is available in an easy to use format at http://openparliament.ca/bills/votes/41-1/

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.

I think this is the single greatest problem with Canadian politics. So many voters now don't even know who they are voting for. They simply walk into the polling station and check the name beside the party they want to represent them.

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?

They still take bills to committee for review and amendment in a relatively functional process. Further, the bill has to undergo review by the Senate before it is passed. You can write your Senator and the Senate committee to reconsider the egregious clauses.

An other major factor is the current conservative government. It has already taken unilaterally decision on subject like "hand gun register" and "omnibus law" despite the strong disagreement of experts, the public and even potential lawsuit from the province. If the prime minister wants C-11 to pass, it will pass.

The thing is "they" can always bring up a bill like this. It's not possible to continually fight this kind of nonsense. I wonder if there is legitimate strategy to simply letting the most heinous version pass. That way when it is fought in court it will be more difficult to defend. And then precedent will be set and future bills will be less likely to pass or be supported.

When the SOPA fury was going on in the states, I was talking to some friends of mine saying that it'd be a great business idea to promote Canada as a technology haven, not having a patriot act or SOPA at all. Forgot that our government seems to pick up failed ideas form other places and think they're golden.

And of course, there's not a damn thing anyone can do about it, because "Canadians voted for a strong, stable conservative majority in tough economic times", or whatever horseshit Harper's minions are spewing these days.

Speakout at http://www.ccer.ca/speakout/

Send a letter to your representative at Ottawa.

Already done. Sadly as they're a non-Conservative MP, I expect it to have as much of an effect as screaming into the wind. The joys of your MP being on the wrong side of a majority.

Given Canada's record on freedom of speech in general, I imagine this is far more likely to pass than the American bill.

Im beginning believe that the only way this worldwide tide of destructive legislation will be defeated is by letting these laws happen and letting them discredit themselves, to be hopefully repealed at a later date, once it is clear enough people have suffered.

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.

We might be a tenth of your population America, but we were up in arms about SOPA!

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...

What can Canadians learn from their American cousins to stop this bill?

As a Canadian, I also fought against SOPA and PIPA. I brought down my site and attempted to raise awareness to all I knew.

This bill is no different. We should fight not for just our own countries, but for a free and open internet.

Registration is open for Startup School 2019. Classes start July 22nd.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact