Leaks show U.S. swayed Canada on copyright bill

CitizenX · October 4, 2011

This is old news but I don't remember seeing thread. Why isn't this a scandal? Is this treason?

http://www.thestar.com/news/article/1048993#article

Secret U.S. government cables show a stunning willingness by senior Canadian officials to appease American demands for a U.S.-style copyright law here.

Tony Clement suggesting it might help U.S. demands for a tough copyright law if Canada were placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list. Days later, the U.S. placed Canada alongside China and Russia on the list.

Canadian Government Sought U.S. Copyright Blacklisting

Canada to U.S.: please blacklist us!

Conservative government to debate revamping Canada's copyright law

Edited October 4, 2011 by CitizenX

TimG · October 4, 2011

This is old news but I don't remember seeing thread. Why isn't this a scandal? Is this treason?

I don't see what the issue is.

You seem to think that enforcing copyright as a bad thing. Yet large segments of our non-resource based economy depend on copyright in order to protect their businesses.

CitizenX · October 5, 2011

I don't see what the issue is.

You seem to think that enforcing copyright as a bad thing. Yet large segments of our non-resource based economy depend on copyright in order to protect their businesses.

Clement conspires with the US to get Canada placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list in order to get tough copyright law. And you don't see an issue? :blink:

ToadBrother · October 5, 2011

I don't see what the issue is.

You seem to think that enforcing copyright as a bad thing. Yet large segments of our non-resource based economy depend on copyright in order to protect their businesses.

My concern mainly lays in the outlawing of breaking digital locks in all circumstances, even as the US has created a number of exemptions to this rule. And the defense of it seems to be "Well, if you're doing it privately, nobody will catch you..."

As well, the proposed bill's rules surrounding educational institutions is just nuts.

Edited October 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

cybercoma · October 5, 2011

Let's get one thing straight. The US didn't sway Canada on anything. The US swayed Harper's government, but the US was swayed by the corporate elite. If anyone doesn't think that there's a one world corporatocracy yet, they're out of their damn minds.

bush_cheney2004 · October 5, 2011

Let's get one thing straight. The US didn't sway Canada on anything. The US swayed Harper's government, but the US was swayed by the corporate elite. If anyone doesn't think that there's a one world corporatocracy yet, they're out of their damn minds.

OK...it's official...you have earned your Tinfoil Hat. Polynewbie salutes you!

ToadBrother · October 5, 2011

Let's get one thing straight. The US didn't sway Canada on anything. The US swayed Harper's government, but the US was swayed by the corporate elite. If anyone doesn't think that there's a one world corporatocracy yet, they're out of their damn minds.

Let's get another thing straight here. The versions of this bill being floated by the Liberals (this has been ongoing since the Martin government) were even worse. This bill is actually better in a number of key respects, in particular in the "fair dealing" clauses then the predecessor bills that the Tories and Liberals before them had been working on.

It's not perfect, and the big areas of imperfection are in the rights effectively being removed from educational institutions and in the demented digital lock rules that even the US is backing away from.

It irritates me immensely in these copyright debates that people keep talking about "Those evil Tories", when the very worst versions were floated by the Liberals when they had their hands on the steering wheel.

Edited October 5, 2011 by ToadBrother

TimG · October 5, 2011

Clement conspires with the US to get Canada placed among the worst offenders on an international piracy watch list in order to get tough copyright law. And you don't see an issue?

Why don't we look at what was actually said instead of the spin you want to put on it:

Addington explained that because the current Ministers of Industry and Heritage were appointed after the introduction and death of bill C 61, the previous copyright bill, both Ministers need time to ensure that they are comfortable with any new legislation. Addington said that they have not yet determined if they will use bill C 61 as a model or start from scratch. In contrast to the messages from other Canadian officials, she said that if Canada is elevated to the Special 301 Priority Watch List (PWL), it would not hamper - and might even help - the GOC's ability to enact copyright legislation.

My reading is Addington is simply stating the facts as she sees them. She is not asking/begging the US to do that - just stating that it does not make a difference from the government's perspective.

The rest of a cable reads exactly as I would expect to see from a government preparing its own copyright bill tailored to meet the needs of Canadians.

http://cables.mrkva.eu/cable.php?id=203598

Edited October 5, 2011 by TimG

TimG · October 5, 2011

My concern mainly lays in the outlawing of breaking digital locks in all circumstances, even as the US has created a number of exemptions to this rule.

I agree. I don't understand why this provision is so strict.

MiddleClassCentrist · October 5, 2011

My concern mainly lays in the outlawing of breaking digital locks in all circumstances, even as the US has created a number of exemptions to this rule. And the defense of it seems to be "Well, if you're doing it privately, nobody will catch you..."

Absolutely right.

It's like buying a house only to find out that the basement has a lock on it and you aren't allowed to use it... but if you break the lock you are fined for it.

Shouldn't people be able to back up their content?

ToadBrother · October 5, 2011

Absolutely right.

It's like buying a house only to find out that the basement has a lock on it and you aren't allowed to use it... but if you break the lock you are fined for it.

Shouldn't people be able to back up their content?

Well, on the face of it, the law is unenforceable, except for the one group that probably has the greatest justification for breaking said locks; educational institutions.

It's idiotic, but to some extent I can't even blame Hollywood for this one. This one looks more like it was written to favor the textbook companies.

TimG · October 5, 2011

Well, on the face of it, the law is unenforceable, except for the one group that probably has the greatest justification for breaking said locks; educational institutions.

The law will have the effect of outlawing the sale of devices and/or programs that break locks. If a personal use exemption existed these programs could be legally sold.

ToadBrother · October 5, 2011

The law will have the effect of outlawing the sale of devices and/or programs that break locks. If a personal use exemption existed these programs could be legally sold.

And yet the US has made exemptions for breaking digital locks. As a number of people, including Michael Geist have pointed out, Canada's adopting this strong position even as its largest trading partner backs away from it, doesn't make much sense.

At any rate, the real potent programs for breaking digital locks are usually freely available anyways. The infamous example of the Blu-ray encryption key has been posted on the Net several million times by now. At the end of the day, it's a futile law that at best could only ever be so unevenly enforced that it will ultimately only harm groups like educational institutions, who have the greatest legitimate need to break such locks.

CitizenX · October 5, 2011

Why don't we look at what was actually said instead of the spin you want to put on it:

My reading is Addington is simply stating the facts as she sees them. She is not asking/begging the US to do that - just stating that it does not make a difference from the government's perspective.

The rest of a cable reads exactly as I would expect to see from a government preparing its own copyright bill tailored to meet the needs of Canadians.

http://cables.mrkva.eu/cable.php?id=203598

Addington explained that because the current Ministers of Industry and Heritage were appointed after the introduction and death of bill C 61, the previous copyright bill, both Ministers need time to ensure that they are comfortable with any new legislation. Addington said that they have not yet determined if they will use bill C 61 as a model or start from scratch. In contrast to the messages from other Canadian officials, she said that if Canada is elevated to the Special 301 Priority Watch List (PWL), it would not hamper - and might even help - the GOC's ability to enact copyright legislation.

http://cables.mrkva.eu/cable.php?id=203598

SBU) Based on a meeting with Minister Clement, officials at the Canadian Chamber of Commerce have advised their members that fall 2009 is the earliest possible timeframe for introduction of a copyright bill. Other industry representatives agree with this assessment, and most believe that elevating Canada to the PWL would be an effective way to spur movement on this issue. The industry representatives argue that new Canadian federal elections could be called this fall or winter, which would again doom any potential copyright legislation to the same fate as the last two attempts at copyright reform.

sounds like she is asking to me.

Edited October 5, 2011 by CitizenX

bush_cheney2004 · October 5, 2011

...Shouldn't people be able to back up their content?

Not unless you purchase the right to do so...read the fine print.

MiddleClassCentrist · October 5, 2011

Not unless you purchase the right to do so...read the fine print.

I understand that. But media corps shouldn't get it both ways.

They want to sell us a 'license' to individually access content so we can't share.

They want to charge us for a new copy when the media is damaged or faulty.

If we already have the license, we shouldn't need to buy another copy. That is taking advantage of consumers unethically.

Edited October 5, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist

TimG · October 5, 2011

sounds like she is asking to me.

Depends entirely on the context. If it was in response to a question by US officials then it is statement of fact. If it was an unsolicited comment then it could be construed as 'asking'. The trouble is the cable does not provide the context therefore you cannot assume it was not in response to a query by US officials.

The second quote was attributed to "industry representatives" and has no bearing on what Addington said.

Edited October 5, 2011 by TimG

Oleg Bach · October 5, 2011

Leaks that flowed like mighty rivers showed that the U.S. swayed Canada on the Afghanistan adventure..so what else is new ---- talking to a Canadian buisness guy about a buisness where a small Canadian operation sold pharma product at cheap rates to little old American ladies....he said "The Americans are not going to like that" ------ our big dogs are fearful of your even BIGGER American dogs...always been that way - If you want a healthy Canadian operation - You have to kiss Yankee ass...that is just the way it is.

Oleg Bach · October 5, 2011

Not unless you purchase the right to do so...read the fine print.

Copyright only works for big fancey law firms that specialize in branding....for the little guy - they just pick through intellectual property - registered or not - steal the good ideas - disguise them and off they go - the common guy has no protection when it comes to property of the brain...it is totally legal to pick someones brain....The richest people stole all of the good ideas - Look at Thomas Edison - the weasil had 20 bright guys working for him (who signed wavers) - when one of them came up with a good idea - HE registered it in his name...and we all think he was a hero - when he was a common crook and stealer of intellectual property

Oleg Bach · October 5, 2011

OK...it's official...you have earned your Tinfoil Hat. Polynewbie salutes you!

Want one too - the real heavy gage foil...and maybe some viking horns or something - see what you can do.

bush_cheney2004 · October 5, 2011

...If we already have the license, we shouldn't need to buy another copy. That is taking advantage of consumers unethically.

I have never been forced to buy a copy in a newer format. I can still play 78 RPM records when needed, and Edison cylinders are available on eBay!

Oleg Bach · October 5, 2011

Good luck and have fun -------------and continue to remind the Canadians that America is their oldest and dearest enemy --- called buisness - no room for nice guys or polite Canadians at the table.

ToadBrother · October 5, 2011

I have never been forced to buy a copy in a newer format. I can still play 78 RPM records when needed, and Edison cylinders are available on eBay!

And when your VHS player wears out?

Digital locks are essentially licenses to print money. All a company need do is to shift formats with regularity, and the digital lock law essentially makes shifting to the new format illegal.

But to see how badly digital locks have failed, just how many music services out there still release DRM-locked music files?

ToadBrother · October 5, 2011

Not unless you purchase the right to do so...read the fine print.

Unless you're in the US and fall under one of the exempted groups.

bush_cheney2004 · October 5, 2011

And when your VHS player wears out?

I will open up the box containing a new one...I have six. I also have two working 8-track player-recorders.

Digital locks are essentially licenses to print money. All a company need do is to shift formats with regularity, and the digital lock law essentially makes shifting to the new format illegal.

Again, consumers are not forced to move to a new format, which is added value.