Bill C-60

Bill C-60, “An Act to amend the Copyright Act” , with first reading June 20, 2005. Please also see our Bill C-60 specific pages.

Canadian Election Has Internet Advocates Watching

This Slyck article by Drew Wilson includes:

A lot is at stake in Canada, and the 23rd may be considered 'zero hour' as election coverage commences after the ballots close at 7 PM. What does the Canadian election have to do with peer-2-peer users? Experts like Michael Geist and David Fewer would agree the federal government has actually been very active on internet concerns as virtually every issue now hangs in limbo. So perhaps every Canadian file-sharer or anyone who uses the internet may want to pay close attention to this race more then any other.

BoingBoing: Canadians: ask your Member of Parliament to declare a stand on copyright

This BoingBoing article posted by Canadian science fiction author Cory Doctorow includes:

Canadians can use an automated tool to write to their Members of Parliament to warn them off of supporting Bill C-60, the Liberal Party's proposal to bring Canadian copyright law into step with the US's Digital Millennium Copyright Act and the UN treaty that spawned it.

See also: Musician playing at Hollywood's MP fundraiser owes success to copying, Hollywood's MP caught lying on tape.

The Low Down on Downloading

In response to an article in The Eye Opener by Carla Wintersgill, I wrote the following letter.

The reason why CRIA lost the case in front of the federal court and federal court of appeals is because of inadequate evidence. Simply put, they didn't even bother to spend the time to download a song and listen to it to verify that the song was one that the labels hold the copyright for. Most legal experts agree that unauthorized uploading and sharing of music or other digital media is not legal in Canada, contrary to the misinformation that the lobbiests and their friends in parliament are spreading.

A Web pioneer lays out the drawbacks of American-style copyright laws

Canadian science fiction author Cory Doctorow wrote an article in the Toronto Star which includes:

As well as being a writer, I'm a partner in a copyright-based business whose server is located in Toronto, not far from Bulte's riding. Boing Boing is the daily blog I co-edit; it gets about 1.7 million readers a day. We rely on copyright to protect our income, but we also need copyright to get out of the way when we quote, excerpt and include stills from other websites in the course of reporting on them.

Copyright extremists like Bulte can deliver systems that give large corporations more opportunities to profit from the public, but they never do artists any favours.

BoingBoing reference.

We can still see you

Since watching Sam Bulte's response to the Copyright Pledge, I've been trying to rationalize her odd little view of the world. Her defense of funding from the copyright industry and the obvious conflict of interest reduces to "it's fine for this to happen because you know it happened"... Substituting into her logic: as long as I tell a creator that I've made an illegitimate copy of their art, it's acceptable? Since this is essentially the logic behind Private Copying regime, I guess we don't need Bill C-60 (or it's successor), do we?

How p2p file sharing helps artists, by Loaf from The Pariahs

This article by Loaf from the band The Pariahs includes:

Old-school record companies are being squeezed by two factors, both caused by digital technology.

It used to be that unless you were independently wealthy, you needed a record deal to make a professional quality recording. This is no longer the case.

It used to be that you needed major label clout to make your music widely available -this is no longer the case either.

ITBusiness: Liberal fundraiser stirs up copyright controversy

This article by Neil Sutton in includes this misinformation from Bulte:

Bulte said that she resents the implication of undue influence, adding that “no one can buy me for $250 or $250,000. I have been an outspoken advocate of artists and creators well before I was ever elected, because nobody speaks out for them.”

I wrote the following letter to the editor:

Ms. Bulte exemplifies those qualities that make people not trust politicians -- misdirection and false information to try to hide from her own scandal. When Bulte says that there is a need for someone to speak out for the interests of artists and creators because "nobody speaks out for them.", she is misdirecting from the fact that she is a big part of the problem in Ottawa. She is a close friends with the intermediaries between creators and their audiences. These intermediaries are an entirely separate set of interests than artists and creators, and Bulte has shut out most actual creators from the debate. She quickly dismisses anyone that doesn't share her extreme views, ignoring the warnings of dire consequences to authors and creators of her policies.

Cause or Effect: Bulte further exposed by balanced copyright activist Michael Geist.

This article by Michael Geist includes:

Late Friday Bulte sent out a response to at least some constituents who expressed concern about the fundraiser. I've received several copies (they are all the same right down to the identical typo). In it, Bulte defends her actions, arguing that she "will never waiver [sic]" in her support for the cultural community.
Whether this support is a function of cause (the support makes it more likely that Ms. Bulte will support these groups) or effect (the support comes because Ms. Bulte is supporting these groups) is immaterial. What matters is that the copyright policy process has been tainted by the perception of cash for copyright.

I wrote the following as a comment on Mr. Geist's BLOG.

Sony-BMG settlement blueprint to modernize Canadian law

This Ottawa Sun article by Sean McKibbon includes:

Ottawa Internet copyright guru Michael Geist says a settlement given preliminary approval by a judge in a U.S. class-action suit could be used by Canadian legislators as a blueprint for laws protecting consumers' privacy and rights to use digital music.

"Privacy legislation doesn't give enough protections to consumers," said the University of Ottawa law professor.

I wrote the following letter to Sean McKibbon.

Normally I'm writing in to help correct misinformation in the media on these issues, but you did a great job. So-called "Copy control" can not accomplish its claimed goal of protecting copyright, but does have a hidden agenda of being used by intermediaries to hide unscrupulous activities including invasions of privacy, circumvention of computer security, digital enforcemnt of legally unenforceable or illegal contracts, or their own infringement of copyright.

Sony's 'rootkit' opens massive can of worms

This London Free Press article by David Canton, Freelance Writer includes:

So all in the name of copy protection, Sony-BMG has angered customers, musicians and retailers, lost sales, possibly breached privacy and computer trespass laws, exposed customers to viruses, allegedly used code in the XCP they were not licensed to use, denied and covered up what they had done and dismissed legitimate concerns as unfounded.

Leads one to wonder why Canada is considering amending its copyright legislation to make it illegal to defeat digital rights management software.

Syndicate content