Over the past few years, successive Canadian governments have tried to introduce new copyright bills which have been been repeatedly unpopular. Recently some lobbyists even accused TorrentFreak of abusing a consultation by manipulating a consultation on copyright. However, the dust has settled, and so now we have Bill C-32.

The text of the Bill is almost impenetrable, as usual – perhaps in a bid to disguise what is actually intended – but a few things are clear. This is almost everything the lobbyists wanted, and little that matched the wishes of the public. While there are provisions that are extremely pro-consumer, such as giving people the ability to format shift, it is mostly negated by restrictions placed upon it.

One of the strongest downsides to the Bill is the increased restriction on bypassing DRM. Even when a copy can be made, such as for format shifting, if it means bypassing DRM, it’s a no-no. All despite DRM being an abject failure at its intended purpose – preventing copying – it’s great at doing something else – inconveniencing legitimate customers.

“For the third time, the Canadian government has looked toward the deep pockets of the RIAA and MPAA for inspiration in dealing with copyright,” the Canadian Pirate Party told TorrentFreak. “Bill C-32 represents a gross disregard of consumers’ free will to control what they rightfully own, through banning the bypass of ‘DRM’ controls placed by big industry.”

There is also an apparent lack of indemnity associated with the Bill. Gary Fung of isoHunt shared concerns with TorrentFreak over the lack of immunity from liability when complying with the process in handling copyright notifications in the Bill. It could mean not only the end of sites like isoHunt, but also of Youtube and Facebook.

Of course, such double-standards become obvious when the very point behind the Bill is unclear. The Bill’s preamble, for instance, finishes with two contradictory paragraphs:

Whereas the Government of Canada is committed to enhancing the protection of copyright works or other subject-matter, including through the recognition of technological protection measures, in a manner that promotes culture and innovation, competition and investment in the Canadian economy;

And whereas Canada’s ability to participate in a knowledge economy driven by innovation and network connectivity is fostered by encouraging the use of digital technologies for research and education;

And there is clear evidence that the minsters behind C-32 have either not read it, or do not understand it. This is part of an email sent from the office of Tony Clement, the Minister of Industry, that was forwarded to TorrentFreak:

We are pleased to inform you that the Government of Canada has introduced legislation to modernize the Copyright Act, bringing it up to date with the advances of the digital age.

This legislation will bring Canada in line with international standards and promote homegrown innovation and creativity. It is a fair, balanced, and common-sense approach, respecting both the rights of creators and the interests of consumers in a modern marketplace.

The actual intent is made clear towards the end.

It gives creators and copyright owners the tools to protect their work and grow their business models.

In a nutshell, that’s what the Bill boils down to – protection for the copyright industries and their business models. On the positive side, perhaps the Bill will force the government to do something about the massive piracy the Canadian music industry has been undertaking for many years.

Source: Third Time the Charm? Canada Tries New Copyright Bill Again

Luckily, there are still some politicians who know what’s right and what’s not. Charles Angus, a Canadian MP, is not a fan of the ’3 strikes and you’re out’ proposals, which have also been discussed in Canada. Indeed, it seems that nobody, except the lobby groups pushing it, are for it. Cory Doctrow, in a piece for the Guardian the other day, proposed a similar 3-strikes measure for the anti-piracy officials. Send 3 false accusations and you’re off the net. Angus is similarly opposed in a recent interview:

Well, i think the outset the three strike law as admissible is idiotic. It’s idiotic because as we see with the DMCA those that get accused of infringements lack the legal power that the corporations that are threatening them have. So it’s always going to be a completely one-sided argument and if ISP’s are legally bound to cut you off after three claims of infringement, I think there are certainly problems.

Charles Angus, MP, is not your typical politician. Unlike most, he’s not a lawyer, and having worked first hand with those who have been forgotten by those in government , the homeless , has a good appreciation for cause and effect. Also, through clashes with his church over gay marriage in the past, he has also proven himself a man of morals, not easily swayed by peer pressure or lobbying.

It is welcome then, to hear that he is also in strong opposition to Canada’s bill C61, dubbed “the Canadian DMCA”. Back in early May, in a statement from his office he warned of lobby actions:

The DMCA lobby will be working closely with the government to create a false impression that there’s an international crisis of confidence in Canada’s copyright regime. They will attempt to portray copyright as a black and white battle against pirates, thieves and criminals. In doing so, they will tar the efforts of educators, consumer groups and artist’s organization who recognize that the DMCA is the wrong model for Canada.

DMCA advocates have attempted to portray Canada as a pirate haven for failing to ratify the WIPO agreement. Angus points out that many of Canada’s competitors are in exactly the same position, and that Canada could easily ratify WIPO without agreeing to the onerous restrictions included in the DMCA legislation. He says politicians need to wake up to the problems with the DMCA.

The DMCA is a failed model. It doesn’t work in the United States and it won’t address the needs of a 21st century innovation agenda in Canada. However, U.S. trade lobbyists are intent on bringing Canada to heel. They will try to choreograph a sense of fear that Canada is somehow failing internationally if we don’t go the DMCA route.

Many didn’t heed that warning, however, and bill C-61 was the result, introduced last month. Like a lot of consumers (including some 85,000 – up from 40,000 last month – on Michael Geist’s facebook group) Angus isn’t happy about the bill, as he states:

Bill 61 is a piece of legislation that is taking us down the wrong road. We really need to update our copyright legislation for the 21st century. It’s Something that has been dragging on much too long. But bill c-61 is premised on a number of very faulty assumptions. It’s also predicated on, well it’s been based on a complete lack of consultation with the key people who need to be at the table to make good copyright legislation.

When it comes to copyright, he is the one that had the advantage over politicians. A former musician, he also earns money from book sales as well as music. His views seem to be quite different from another artist, Indiana Gregg, the difference is, he has studied the facts, she hasn’t.

It is the punishments that come up for greatest scorn however, and he is firmly on the side of ‘proving your case’ something the industry hates to do, for studies, and now lawsuits.

If you look at how the lawsuits happen in the U.S, you will get a bill for 15-20,000 and be told to pay it. If you try to challenge it, they will bring a massive legal team against you, and we saw the woman in the U.S who basically lost her house and savings for the fact she uploaded 12-24 songs. Thats completely irrational. If there are damages, if someone has massivly infringed copyright, there has to be a limit. There has to be clear limits, and it has to be proven what those damages are.

For the full low-down on his thoughts, check out the full interview. For more information about the European “three strikes” legislation, visit the Open Rights Group.

Source: Canadian MP: Three Strikes Law is Idiotic