Submission + - Canadian Conservatives to revisit Bill C-61 (thestar.com) 1
mandelbr0t writes: The Canadian Conservative government is preparing to reintroduce amended copyright legislation on Thursday. Most sources say that the proposed legislation is very similar to Bill C-61, generally dubbed the "Canadian DMCA". It still includes definitions of "technological protections" and criminalizes "circumvention" of those protections. Bill C-61 died in summer of 2008, facing massive opposition from the Canadian public. Once again, it's time for Canadians to get politically active. I recommend these readings to get you started.ORC ran a large campaign with the last attempt, and will likely be updated soon with the new proposed legislation. They have a lot of resources for getting involved.
As with Bill C-61, the Conservative government has launched a campaign of misinformation to attempt to force the law down our throat. Industry Minister Tony Clement is trying to convince people that "format shifting" is currently illegal. Of course, it is not actually criminal, and enforcement of private infringement, as always, is prevented by the fact that massive invasion of privacy would have to occur. Second, Mr. Clement is claiming that this law is necessary to bring Canada into line with the WIPO Treaty. The above readings discredit WIPO altogether. Furthermore, the two articles that are being referred to are Articles 11 and 12. Note the use of the phrase "effective technological measure" and the absence of any criminality requirement. This legislation is not necessary to provide amended copyright law that is consistent with the WIPO treaty, and will hopefully die an uneventful death, to be buried for eternity.
As with Bill C-61, the Conservative government has launched a campaign of misinformation to attempt to force the law down our throat. Industry Minister Tony Clement is trying to convince people that "format shifting" is currently illegal. Of course, it is not actually criminal, and enforcement of private infringement, as always, is prevented by the fact that massive invasion of privacy would have to occur. Second, Mr. Clement is claiming that this law is necessary to bring Canada into line with the WIPO Treaty. The above readings discredit WIPO altogether. Furthermore, the two articles that are being referred to are Articles 11 and 12. Note the use of the phrase "effective technological measure" and the absence of any criminality requirement. This legislation is not necessary to provide amended copyright law that is consistent with the WIPO treaty, and will hopefully die an uneventful death, to be buried for eternity.
