“Canada’s DMCA”, a.k.a. Bill C-61, Wasn’t Written for You and Me

This bill is outrageous!

Just out of curiosity: is this bill substantively different from the Liberal take on the DMCA from a few years ago? I remember Sarmite Bulte was thrown out of her seat over that bill.

Professor Geist’s position is that that the Copyright Act traditionally (& explicitly) allows for copying of protected materials for private use, research, private study, criticism, and news reporting. He posits that Bill C-61 denies you that opportunity if you unlock the digital codes. And while he may be right, the issue is that this is the dictum from Parliament itself. (Side note: He teaches at the school that gave me one of my degrees. A lot of the minds there are all a ‘little’ off the centre line. In fact, IMHO, I can’t think of one true centrist or conservative full prof at that institution, except for the tax guru there. I think it’s the lead in the Ottawa municipal drinking water.)

My God, how many copies do you need for personal use or private study? Or even to teach? Isn’t 1 enough?

That’s the same Parliament that made it easy for your illegal downloaders not to get charged for royalties by your ISP providers because it enacted s. 2.4(1)(b) of the Copyright Act specifically exempting that collection (and upheld by the Supreme Court in the case – Society of Composers, Authors and Music Publishers of Canada v. Canadian Assn. of Internet Providers, [2004] 2 S.C.R. 427, 2004 SCC 45) So you’re happy with one decision of Parliament & upset with another. Hey, you can’t have your cake & eat it too. Go bitch to your MP. See if those Conservative chowderheads will listen at all. (Personally, I can’t stand them myself.)

You’re right in your first line. C-61 was not written for you & me. It was written to protect intellectual property owners. You know, those people who invested time & money to create that masterpiece, ‘Harold & Kumar Go to Rexdale’. Whether it’s a book, a DVD or a song, it’s all copyrighted material & one isn’t different from another (the Court in the SOCAN case made this point when it referenced the prior Supreme Court case of CCH Canadian Ltd. v. Law Society of Upper Canada, [2004] 1 S.C.R. 339, 2004 SCC 13 which dealt with alleged copying of lawbooks in the law library).

And while you can make infinite copies of a book for personal or education use, you can’t do it for digital files IF you break the code. Isn’t that more, or less, the same rules for IT programs? (ie. I can copy my MS Office onto X computers, but if I do it on more, then I need a license. Otherwise, I’m breakin’ the law.). So why should it be any different for my Harold & Kumar DVD? If I need more copies, I should get (sorry, pay for) a license from the copyright holder. Right?

If you read the preamble to Bill C-61, it rightfully states that:
“Whereas in the current digital era copyright protection is enhanced when countries adopt coordinated approaches, based on internationally recognized norms;

Whereas such norms are reflected in the World Intellectual Property Organization Copyright Treaty and the World Intellectual Property Organization Performances and Phonograms Treaty, adopted in Geneva in 1996;

Whereas such norms are not wholly reflected in the Copyright Act;”

the proposed measures in C-61 reflect that Canada has been behind the rest of the world in this domain. Your statement above was that “the law refuses to go forward.” I think instituting standards that are already reflected in other WIPOC countries is moving forward.

The practical reality if this Bill is proclaimed into law is that:
“It’s not like entertainment companies are about to go sue people,” he said. “It’s about people who are making libraries of massive infringement and making them available to their friends that they have over the Internet.” http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=583125

So don’t worry, your multiple copies of Harold & Kumar will go unnoticed by the Copyright Gestapo & you’ll bicycle off into the sunset with a smirk on your face ’cause you just got one over on The Man.

And while Terence Corcoran may have raised your bile level, he wasn’t too far off the mark when he said that this probably won’t make it to law if there’s a fall election. (I don’t have too much time for him either.)

The bottom line is that you need to protect the author & the copyright. Why? Because it’s someone’s property. You’re just buying a license to use it for a limited purpose. If you don’t protect it, the ownership & authorship of this type of property is diminshed & worthless.

If you think so little of intellectual property rights & the need to protect them, let me know so I can start printing up “The Accordion Guy” T-Shirts & Mugs with direct excerpts from this website & copies of your artistic cartoon doodles in my old high school yearbooks, sell them at a premium & keep all of the money to myself. Or how about I get someone to hack the code at your company’s webpages & pass the programs off as my own scripts on a new website. That’s not fair? Exactly.

So please tell me where I’m “wrong, wrong wrong.” And while you’re doing that, please let me know how you would protect the work, sweat and $$ of copyright holders. I’m always open to reasonable suggestions.

With love always,
I.Z.

PS. Don’t people read books anymore?

“My God, how many copies do you need for personal use or private study? Or even to teach? Isn’t 1 enough?”

Yes, one is enough, if it can be used everywhere the owner of the copy goes. DRM and Bill C-61 want to make multiple copies to be required to adhere to the law, even when common sense and technology allow for one [legally purchased] copy to be enough. If someone is told that they have to buy a DVD 3 times over to legally use it everywhere they go, then they’ll give the DVD industry the middle finger, not buy any copies, and use free software to get a free copy.

The marketplace has spoken, but Jim Prentice and the Conservatives are out to build an American marketplace for lawyers, in Canada.