In common with many of the groups tied to the music industry, SAC has a strong opinion about file-sharing. But unlike most of the others, they don’t want to shutter sites that allow people to share copyrighted music. Quite the opposite.

SAC believes that consumers should have access to all the music in the world, something that only file-sharing sites provide today. So instead of shutting these sites down the songwriters association wants to legalize file-sharing, while compensating the artists whose works are shared.

“People have always shared music and always will. The music we share defines who we are, and who our friends and peers are. The importance of music in the fabric of our own culture, as well as those around the world, is inextricably bound to the experience of sharing,” SAC writes in a detailed proposal.

According to the association, file-sharing should be framed as an opportunity rather than a threat to the music industry. To prove this point, SAC is trying to convince other stakeholders that it’s a good idea to monetize file-sharing through some sort of licensing system for consumers.

“Music file-sharing is a vibrant, open, global distribution system for music of all kinds, and presents a tremendous opportunity to both creators and rights-holders. Additionally, once a fair and reasonable monetization system is in place, all stakeholders including consumers and Internet service providers will benefit substantially.”

“By monetizing behavior rather than any specific technology, music creators and rights-holders will lay the foundations for a business model that can continue for decades rather than attempting the almost impossible task of trying to monetize the ever shortening cycle of changing technology,” SAC writes.

With the above, the Association indirectly criticizes the rigid stance of the major labels and the RIAA when it comes to technical innovation. Whether it’s the invention of radio, the cassette tape or file-sharing, they continuously view new technology as a threat instead of something that could help to expand the popularity of music.

To learn more about the ambitious proposal TorrentFreak got in touch with SAC vice president Jean-Robert Bisaillon, who told us that he hopes to make other key players in the music industry aware of the power and value of sharing.

“We think the practice [of file-sharing] is great and unstoppable. This is why we want to establish a regime that allows everyone to keep on doing it without stigmatizing the public and, instead, find a way for artists and rights holders to be fairly compensated for the music files that are being shared,” Bisaillon told us.

“Other positive aspects include being able to find music that is not available in the commercial realm offer, finding a higher quality of digital files, being able to afford music even if you are poor and being able to discover new artists or recommend them to friends.”

SAC’s vice president further notes that not everything the big labels do is in the best interest of musicians and artists. While Bisaillon recognizes that many artists still depend on these companies, he and other songwriters don’t necessarily agree with all their practices.

“The big labels will try to control the market as long as they can and as long as they think the market will generate revenue even if the revenue is the result of legal action. They will try to hook up with whichever commercial endeavor they think might help maintain their control in the marketplace even if this means unfair remuneration for content providers,” Bisaillon says.

“In parallel they will try to discourage any option that may diminish their control even if this means using threats or disinformation. They have the money and contacts to lobby governments in support for their vision. We see our role as developing and providing alternate means of access to music that are good for consumers and creators alike.”

According to Bisaillon the Internet is a blessing, perhaps not for the big music labels, but certainly for musicians and consumers.

“Music is much better off with the Web. The internet network allows for musical discovery despite distance and time of the day. It has sparked collaborations between musicians unimaginable before. It has helped artists to book international tours without expensive long-distances charges and postal delays we knew before,” he told us.

“The Internet has dramatically increased the private non-commercial sharing of music, which we support. All that is missing a means to compensate music creators for this massive use of their work.”

To make this final step SAC is actively talking to all the stakeholders involved, including consumer groups, rights holders and content providers to make their file-sharing license reality.

Although this final step may turn out to be a giant leap for most of the parties involved, it is essential that a prominent association of artists sees the upside to file-sharing. This is a welcome contrast to the repressive stance we are used to hearing from the RIAA and CRIA.

While the “monetize file-sharing” proposal is not necessarily ideal as it has many challenges of its own, SAC’s stance does touch the essence of the ‘problem’. Instead of adding restrictions, the music industry should find ways to give consumers unlimited access to all the music in the world for a fair price.

Source: Canadian Songwriters Want to Legalize File-Sharing

Some of the most high-profile customers of the law firm – who for the purposes of their settlement work are known as the U.S. Copyright Group – are Voltage Pictures, the makers of the Oscar-winning Hurt Locker.

Now it seems that the United States just isn’t a big enough market for settlements, so Voltage have taken their pay-up-or-else lawsuits north – and expanded into Canada.

Earlier, through law firm Goudreau Gage Dubuc LLP, Voltage Pictures applied for an order from the Federal Court in Montreal which would force three Canadian ISPs – Bell Canada, Cogeco Cable Inc. and Videotron GP – to hand over the personal details of subscribers said to have infringed its copyrights.

“Voltage Pictures LLC owns the copyright of the film ‘Hurt Locker’. The defendants have copied and distributed the film via the Internet without the permission of Voltage Pictures LLC,” says the order.

Voltage adds that although it has obtained IP addresses, without the help of Canadian ISPs the studio cannot convert them to real-life identities.

“Voltage Pictures LLC requests permission to interview internet service providers in advance in writing so that they disclose the names and addresses of customers who match the IP addresses already obtained,” says Voltage.

“Once it has identified these customers, Voltage Pictures LLC may send notices and, where appropriate, add these individuals as defendants in this action.”

On August 29th, the Federal Court in Montreal granted the order and gave the trio of ISPs just two weeks to hand over the names of subscribers. Since today is September 9th, and the weekend is almost upon us, one might assume that the details have already been handed over, or will be by Monday.

According to Canadian lawyer Michael Geist, there is no indication that the ISPs challenged the court order or that any public interests were given the opportunity to intervene.

“The prospect of thousands of Canadian peer-to-peer file sharing lawsuits – with potential liability of tens of thousands dollars per person for a single movie – highlights why the government was right in Bill C-32 to reform the statutory damages provision to distinguish between commercial and non-commercial infringement,” writes Geist.

“Non-commercial infringement was capped under the bill at $5000 for all infringements, though it can go far lower. This case confirms that mass lawsuits with the threat of thousands in liability is a real possibility in Canada and why changes to the law are needed.”

Canadian Internet users, with their relaxed attitude towards their culture of file-sharing, are likely to be outraged by the action taken by Voltage. Certainly one to watch.

Source: Hurt Locker Lawsuits Hit Canada, ISPs Ordered To Reveal BitTorrent Users

Pirate Party Canada’s Travis McCrea, who holds both an American and a Canadian passport, definitely falls into the latter category.

As part of the “war for digital sovereignty,” as McCrea describes it, he has launched Tormovies, a site dedicated to providing movie torrents. A look at the site’s front page reveals that all the latest Hollywood blockbusters are showcased.

This is a bold move considering the current political climate, especially since the site is hosted in the United States. However, that’s exactly the plan according to the Pirate Party candidate.

“TorMovies.org is hosted in the United States (for now) as a stance that they can try to extradite my friends and shut down free speech but new sites, new technologies, and new people will always be right around the corner,” McCrea told TorrentFreak.

Despite its current hosting arrangement, Tormovies is unlikely to stay in the United States for long. Instead it will be hosted in a redundant setup with many servers scattered around the world as backups.

“Just because the United States hates sharing culture, doesn’t mean that we are going to back down,” McCrea explained.

“I have full intentions on not backing down and making it clear that my site is not a tool for piracy, it is a tool for discovering movies and sharing culture. It spiders the web like Google does and sometimes it finds torrent files, but the heart of our site is to showcase the art of movies.”

The plan of the Canadian Pirate Party candidate is very similar to that of his Czech counterparts who launched two movie download portals last month. Using the slogan “linking is not a crime,” the Czech Pirate Party said their initiative was a declaration of war against the local anti-piracy lobby.

How long Tormovies will last remains to be seen. There will undoubtedly be a response from various copyright holders, and it wouldn’t be the first time that a Canadian torrent site has been dragged to court. McCrea, however, believes the project is one of the many battles that has to be fought to secure people’s right to share digital information, copyrighted or not.

“We are in a war for digital sovereignty and we are patriots of this digital revolution,” he says.

Source: Canadian Politician Starts Movie Torrent Site

In the United States, where diplomats helped to draft the Spanish legislation, several copyright holders have responded with delight at the passing of the law. However, according to the RIAA and the International Intellectual Property Alliance (IIPA), this is just the first step.

In their advice to the US Trade Representative the groups have included Spain in the Priority Watch List, the highest category for countries that are considered to be ‘piracy havens’. Spain is joined by other defiant states such as Canada, Russia and China, all countries that are labeled as a major threat to the US entertainment industries.

The recommendations of the RIAA will be considered by the US Trade Representative when it prepares its annual Special 301 Report. This report is meant to identify countries that obstruct or deny proper copyright enforcement, thereby hurting the profits of US industries. Last year Canada was also included (pdf) on the priority watch list, while Spain was placed a category lower on the regular watch list.

Despite the passing of the ‘Sinde law’ the RIAA and IIPA say that Spain should be listed on the priority watch list this year. The fact that file-sharing sites have been ruled as operating within the boundaries of the law is something that needs to be addressed in particular, the pair insist.

“The sky-high Internet piracy levels in Spain can be attributed to government policies that have created an Internet-wide safe harbor for infringing activities. Spanish enforcement authorities have established the de facto decriminalization of illegal downloading of content distributed via P2P file-sharing,” they argue.

Another issue that should be resolved is the lack of ability to identify and report copyright infringers. “Spain’s laws fail to meet the minimum requirements of the EU E-Commerce Directive regarding liability for ISPs, or to establish the necessary tools to obtain the identity of the direct infringer,” the groups add.

Aside from Spain, Canada is another candidate for the 2011 priority watch list. In a statement RIAA’s Neil Turkewitz specifically mentioned Canada’s slow progress on revising their copyright law..

“The Canadian Government has inexplicably consumed yet another year without modernizing its copyright regime, leaving a legal structure in place that is not adequate to respond to present challenges,” Turkewitz said.

The claimed result is that Canada is now one of the world’s true pirate havens. In their advice to the US Trade Representative RIAA and IIPA write the following.

“Canada is home to some of the world’s most popular illegitimate Internet sites, including illegitimate P2P download and streaming sites.”

“Canada is viewed as a country in which laws to address digital piracy are weak, ineffective or non-existent, and as a result many sites dedicated to piracy or information sources about them claim that locating or operating in Canada is to their advantage because their services are legal in Canada.”

“Canada has been home to the operators or hosts of five of the world’s top ten pirate BitTorrent sites, and it continues to be a major source of online theft in Canada and around the world.”

Although the latter statistic is open to interpretation, the RIAA and IIPA urge the US Government to include Canada, Spain and 11 other countries on the priority watch list of the 2011 Special 301 Report. In a few weeks we will learn to what extent the advice of the US copyright industry has been heeded.

Source: RIAA Labels Spain and Canada As Piracy Havens

The record labels – including the ‘Big Four’ of Sony, EMI, Warner and Universal – have sued Gary Fung and his company, who own and operate the torrent sites isoHunt, Podtropolis and TorrentBox. The labels claim that these torrent sites and thus their owners, facilitate copyright infringement on a massive scale.

“The isoHunt Websites have been designed and are operated by the defendants with the sole purpose of profiting from rampant copyright infringement which defendants actively encourage, promote, authorize, induce, aid, abet, materially contribute to and commercially profit from,” the court filing reads.

“The defendants and users of the isohunt websites act together, in and part of a file-sharing community, to reproduce and distribute plaintiffs’ sound recordings and other copyright content,” the record labels add.

Through this lawsuit the labels hope to permanently shut down isoHunt and Fung’s two other sites. In addition they are asking the British Columbia Court for statutory damages for each of the listed recordings (over 200 in total), which adds up to well over $4 million.

What is further unique about such a massive lawsuit is that while it was filed in May last year, no one picked the news up until today. At this stage it is unclear why the record labels haven’t chosen to make more noise about this through the press.

TorrentFreak asked isoHunt founder Gary Fung for a comment and he told us that the lawsuit is identical to the counterclaim the record companies filed in the suit isoHunt filed against them in 2008. Isohunt sued the record labels in an act of self-defense at the time, asking the court to legalize its operations.

The current lawsuit shows several similarities to the legal proceedings between isoHunt and the MPAA. In that case the U.S. District Court of California issued a permanent injunction against BitTorrent search engine isoHunt in May last year.

The court ordered the owner of isoHunt to start censoring the site’s search engine based on a list of thousands of keywords provided by the MPAA, or cease its operations entirely in the U.S. The filter was soon implemented (for US visitors) and prevents a list of film related phrases from showing up in the search results.

IsoHunt is currently appealing the ruling in the MPAA case and will undoubtedly fight the lawsuit against the record labels as vigorously.

Source: Record Labels Sue isoHunt for Millions of Dollars

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

In that consultation the public made it clear that stricter copyright laws are not welcome. However, it seems that this has had very little effect as Canada’s Prime Minister is about to announce a ‘new’, even more draconian law. Michael Geist, prof. E-commerce Law in Ottawa, described the bill as “the most anti-consumer copyright bill in Canadian history.”

The owner of isoHunt, one of the largest BitTorrent sites that will be directly affected by the law, is rallying opposition against the new bill. IsoHunt’s Gary Fung is warning of the effects the bill will have on Canadians.

“The effects of a draconian copyright bill in Canada can be far reaching. Things Canadians take for granted, like copying your music from your computer to your music player and vice versa, can be deemed illegal with this new bill,” Gary told TorrentFreak.

“ISPs can be forced to handover private information of users on a whim without due process. They may be further encouraged to throttle P2P traffic, even for entirely legitimate uses like game files distribution. The new bill also is unlikely to provide fair exceptions for breaking DRM for purposes that doesn’t violate copyright, which unfairly prohibits one’s tinkering with electronics he owns,” Gary added.

Gary’s warnings are justified. Although it is not completely clear what the details of the new bill will be, it is expected that it will be the Canadian equivalent of the US Digital Millennium Copyright Act. This means that copyright takedown request become a censorship tool while consumers lose several ‘fair use’ rights.

IsoHunt is currently hosted in Canada and involved in a lawsuit against the Canadian Recording Industry Assicoation (CRIA). If this new bill is passed, this would mean that isoHunt’s chances of winning that long standing legal battle will decrease significantly.

Gary further told TorrentFreak that he is worried that the new bill will lead to increased censorship by copyright holders. “We need laws that support our neutrality and our ability to operate a search engine free of censorship and unreasonable constraints,” Gary told us, adding that the new bill would provide the opposite.

“We’ve seen record labels sending us takedown notices mixed with links to porn, and the new Canadian bill should provide recourse against rights holders providing false identification information. Unless music companies are really switching to distributing porn,” he added.

Once again, we have to encourage all Canadian readers to speak out against the bill before it’s too late. Although the Government ignored the people’s opinion during the consultation, doing nothing will mean that the war is lost for sure. Michael Geist encourages all Canadians to write a paper letter to their Member of Parliament and provides some further pointers.

Update: Here’s a letter wizard.

Source: Canada Fast-Tracks Draconian Anti-Piracy Law

We’re not pro copyright infringement, but what we want to prevent is a situation where the interests of the major entertainment industry companies are placed above the individual rights of Internet users. Like most other countries, Canada already has sufficient copyright laws.

The small businesses and individuals who make their living from copyright have plenty of tools to protect their livelihoods. They will not benefit from privacy-invading measures that will turn the Internet into a police state and one that will only benefit the interests of billion dollar companies whose business model is to exploit copyright.

We’re fully aware that not everyone is in agreement with our views on copyright legislation, but that doesn’t mean that we don’t have the right to encourage the people who do agree to have their voices heard. Isn’t that what defines a democracy? According to IP-lawyer Richard Owens, it isn’t.

“The Consultation was systematically abused by a clandestine group of mod-chip manufacturers, foreign websites administrators and international BitTorrent users, principally through the CCER and ‘TorrentFreak’,” he writes in a lengthy piece. The ‘mod-chip group’ he is referring to is actually the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights, which has nothing to do with mod-chips at all.

Apparently Owens is pretty biased himself by making such allegations. This is not really a surprise since he’s employed by copyright holders and has strong ties to pro-copyright lobby groups. But let’s see what else he has to say.

“For the TorrentFreak and ‘modder’ crowds, piracy havens like Canada have great utility,” writes Owen. “Should the opinions of those who want to exploit Canada for disreputable and illicit trans-border commerce really influence Canada’s copyright policy?”

Again, the lawyer is highly opinionated with his negative characterization of TorrentFreak and the CCER. It was never our intention to “exploit Canada” in any shape or form, we just wanted to encourage our readers to exercise their democratic rights. Is that a crime?

“We must not let our public consultations be abused by shadowy organizations working with foreign purveyors of pirated material. The incentives of non-Canadians to direct Canadian public policy against the interests of Canadians are too strong to ignore,” notes Owen as he continues his rant.

This last comment is interesting. Apparently the pro-copyright lawyer seems to believe that we, as foreigners, intentionally tried to abuse the consultation to conspire against the interests of Canadians. He thereby ignores Canadians are the second largest nation currently reading TorrentFreak and that one of our articles was written by Canadian native Prof. Michael Geist, who holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa.

Aside from labeling TorrentFreak as working with “purveyors of pirated material” and discrediting the CCER, Owens’ rant argues that our involvement may have encouraged non-Canadians to participate, and that the demographics of the respondents are not representative of the Canadian population. This critique is valid to some degree, but is procedural and should be independent of the content of the submissions.

In his comments on the demographics, Owens argues that TorrentFreak readers are mostly teenagers, which is another error. The percentage of teenagers among our readers is actually below the Internet average, while the percentage of readers between 35 and 49 are overrepresented (according to Quantcast). Aside from this mistake, Owens seems to forget that even in democratic election the turnout is never an exact representation of the public.

By saying that our article on the consultations was an attempt to “preserve digital anarchy and continued flow of free stuff”, Owens pretty much exposes his own agenda. He wouldn’t have criticized the outcome of the consultation if it was in line with his personal views.

It wouldn’t surprise us if he was instructed to write this rant by one of his befriended copyright lobbies. These copyright exploiting outfits clearly don’t want everyone to have their voice heard.

Update: The CCER and Michael Geist have responded as well.

Source: Lawyer Claims TorrentFreak Abused Canadian Democracy

Seven weeks ago, the Canadian government launched the first national copyright consultation since 2001. The consultation, which has featured town hall meetings, by-invitation-only roundtables, an online discussion forum, and an open submission process, has attracted considerable interest with over 4,000 submissions to date.

While the overwhelming majority of those submissions have called for balanced reforms that would strengthen fair dealing, create a liability safe harbour for intermediaries, and link any new anti-circumvention rules to actual copyright infringement, there is reason for concern.

There are only six days left in the consultation and the thousands that have spoken out for fair copyright – the students, teachers, Internet users, software programmers, privacy advocates, librarians, and a growing number of creators – now find themselves under attack from two sides.

On one side stand well-known copyright lobby groups such as the Canadian Recording Industry Association, the Canadian Motion Pictures Distributors Association, and the Entertainment Software Alliance. These groups largely represent foreign interests and have consistently called on the Canadian government to adopt the U.S. Digital Millennium Copyright Act as its legislative model.

They invariably claim that Canada should be embarrassed by the current state of copyright law and propose solutions that involve a combination of DMCA-style anti-circumvention rules, a three-strikes and you’re out system that could see users cut off from the Internet, and a rejection of any new flexibilities within fair dealing.

To support those positions, the groups turned out en masse for a public town hall meeting in Toronto late last month, resulting in multiple interventions from record label executives (four from Warner Music alone). Packing the room ensured that there was virtually nothing heard from education and consumer groups, many of whom could not even attend the town hall since all the tickets were scooped up in less than five days.

Standing on the other side are copyright creator groups such as Access Copyright and the American Federation of Musicians. Access Copyright opened the consultation by ominously warning its members that “users outnumber us” and claiming that the debate is dominated by people do not believe that authors should get fair compensation for digital and other reproductions of their work (so far five out of 4038 submissions have called for the elimination of copyright).

Meanwhile, the American Federation of Musicians circulated an email to creator groups calling a leaflet distributed by an opposition Member of Parliament “disgusting” since it supported stronger fair dealing. These groups are pushing for an expanded levy system and have been quick to criticize users that don’t agree or offer up alternatives.

Faced with these vocal lobbying efforts, Canadians have just a few days left to ensure that their voices are heard. The town halls and roundtables are now over. The best way to speak out is through the online submission process that takes only a few minutes to complete. Authors such as Cory Doctorow and David Collier-Brown, technology companies such as Tucows, and groups such as Project Gutenberg Canada, the Documentary Organization of Canada, the Canadian Alliance of Student Associations have all already done so.

Now is the time for Canadians concerned with copyright to add their voices. Websites such as SpeakOutOnCopyright.ca, CCER.ca, Vancouver Fair Copyright, and Digitalagenda.ca provide tools to learn more about the issues and process submissions. If you already know what you want to say, simply send an email to info@copyrightconsultation.gc.ca. Once you have spoken out, tell your friends, send the submission to your local Member of Parliament, and raise awareness that the consultation deadline is Sunday, September 13th.

Many Canadians felt anger and frustration when the government introduced DMCA-style legislation in 2008. The next six days provide a great opportunity to do more than just complain. They offer the chance to help influence the next copyright bill. Don’t wait – speak out on copyright today.

—

Michael Geist holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa, Faculty of Law. He can reached at mgeist@uottawa.ca or online at www.michaelgeist.ca.

Source: Canadians Caught as Copyright Consultation Nears Conclusion

Instead of fostering creativity, they see copyright merely as a means to make money – the more restrictions the better is their credo. The interests of large corporations should come before the rights of individual Internet users, they try to convince the Government.

“With immense pressure from lobby groups, corporate interests and the US government calling for DMCA-style legislation including a three-strike system and warning letters from ISPs, every Canadian needs to be concerned,” Jason Crocker, Chairman of the Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights told TorrentFreak.

This time around the pro-copyright lobbyists are even alienating their own people with their far-reaching proposals. In a recent roundtable discussion the Manitoba Music Industry Association said that they found themselves “more aligned with some of the creators coalitions and independent music groups and less aligned with CRIA and the RIAA.”

Everyone on the Internet, and BitTorrent users specifically, stand to be greatly impacted by changes to Canada’s copyright regime. To prevent this from happening Canadians should inform the Government that they are worried, or deal with the consequences.

“If we do not voice our concerns en masse we run the risk of having a draconian system of copyright rules imposed upon us. Imagine living in a country where corporations dictate how you consume information and media and utilize technology. Canadians need to speak out against such proposals and push for greater flexibility in the law to provide a balanced, fair approach on digital reforms,” Crocker told TorrentFreak.

The good news is that the government also wants to hear from individual Internet users, so that the interests of all Canadians can be taken into account. The public can participate in government consultations on copyright by registering for town hall meetings, webcasts or by sending in a submission via email.

There is also an easy solution for behind-the desk activists though. The Canadian Coalition for Electronic Rights has created a quick and easy to use letter wizard for making submissions to the official consultations as well as the ministers responsible for the copyright file in Canada. The CCER will also physically mail a copy of every submission to the appropriate ministers.

Source: Prevent Canada from Becoming a Copyright Police State

The Canadian Radio, Television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) is currently looking into the traffic management practices of Canadian ISPs, which came to a head as a result of a dispute between CAIP, and its wholesale provider, Bell. The core objectives of the investigation are to examine the Internet traffic management practices being used, and check that they are in accordance with the Telecommunications Act.

The CRTC is looking at the effects of filtering on both regular customers and wholesalers, and the results of the first round of questions are just in. Even though some of the responses are filed in confidence (summarized by Chris Parsons), there is enough information to conclude that all major ISPs slow down customers, with most specifically targeting peer-to-peer traffic.

In their response to the CRTC investigation, Bell, Cogeco, Rogers and Eastlink all admit to slow down P2P traffic, arguing that it negatively affects network performance. Shaw, one of the other big players, admitted that customers are slowed down, but most of its responses were filed in confidence and P2P was not specifically mentioned.

Bell was more open about its practices, and admits using deep packet inspection (DPI) to throttle its individual customers and wholesalers. On Bell Wireline, P2P traffic is slowed down between 4.30 PM and 2 AM. To cope with the increasing bandwidth demands of its customers, they further plan to disconnect heavy users and introduce metered plans where customers pay for the bandwidth they use.

Cogeco started to throttle P2P users back in 2001, when they were only using a tiny fraction of what they do now. However, it was seen as necessary because of the increasing load these users put on the network. Like other ISPs, Cogeco considered other options such as metered plans, but these would not solve the network ‘abuse’ by P2P users. Furthermore, the ongoing battle with P2P users who strive to evade their management solutions led the ISP to use deep packet inspection (DPI) as well.

Rogers claims it has to throttle P2P users to prevent their network from becoming “the world’s buffet,” as they like to call it. Not only does this affect their network, their bandwidth bills also increased due to the growing popularity of BitTorrent and other filesharing networks. Similar to Bell and Cogeco, Rogers is also known to use DPI. Upstream P2P traffic is slowed down across their entire network, regardless of congestion,

Shaw filed most of its answers in confidence, but provided a rather paradoxical statement which clearly shows that they slow down upstream traffic. “The traffic management technologies have reduced the rate of upstream consumption to a more manageable rate,” they write, claiming that this allows their customers to reach their full contract speeds. Similar to the other ISPs Shaw is predicting that bandwidth usage will grow, and that traffic shaping is essential to manage their network.

In summary, we can conclude that there is no such thing as net neutrality in Canada. All of the larger ISPs slow down their customers, with most of them specifically targeting P2P traffic through deep packet inspection. Because of this, P2P users can’t enjoy the speeds they were promised, and several legitimate businesses whose income depends on delivering content through BitTorrent or other filesharing networks are unable to compete with those who don’t. It’s now up to the CRTC to draw the right conclusions.

Source: All Major Canadian ISPs Slow Down P2P Traffic

For every blank CD sold in Canada, 21¢ used to go to the music industry, to compensate Canadian artists. This has now gone up to 29¢. However, the levy was introduced before the first iPod was sold, and this immediately brings up one of the key problems. The question is: How many of the blank CDs that are sold are used to copy Canadian music onto it? Furthermore, is it fair to ‘tax’ all the other people who buy those CDs for other means?

It seems that the levy is outdated by technology since most private copies are made on MP3 players, not on CDs. With the rise of MP3 players, and the ways to get them connected to audio equipment, blank CDs are becoming less relevant in the audio world. Further, as most computers now come with DVD burners, CDs may be following the floppy as an outdated storage medium. This raised levy might be the beginning of the end for CDs, at least in Canada.

Of course, the advances in technology were totally ignored by the Copyright Board. The only technology mention dealt with compression. Two reasons were given for the raise by the Secretary General of the Copyright Board of Canada, Claude Majeau.

“Two main factors led the Board to raise the CD levy rate to 29¢. First, the mechanical royalties that record labels pay to record a song onto a prerecorded CD have increased. Second, because consumers now use compression technology when they record music, the average number of music tracks copied onto a CD went from 15 to more than 18.”

Unfortunately for Mr. Majeau, the second point is greatly undermined by the fact that, according to the audio CD standard (commonly known as Red Book), CDs shouldn’t be compressed at all. If he was referring to mp3′s, then reducing the average size from 43Mb to 36 (assuming a 650Mb CD) is also unusual.

How fair the levies are is debatable. First, while it claims to be for compensating artists, the Canadian Private Copying Collective (CPCC) FAQ makes it clear that only Canadian performers and record companies qualify for payment. This is a significant blow against non-Canadian artists that don’t have a Canadian representative – the small artist. Worse, the payout of the collected levies is based on radio airplay and retail sales (physical and download). So, a starting Canadian artist that decides to burn 1000 CDs of his demo, he or she is actually paying $290 to established musicians and record labels.

There is also the question of payment. By their own figures, the CPCC had collected almost $242M between 1999 and 2007, of which just under $207M was available for payouts, but only $148.8M had been distributed, leaving $58M or so sitting around, roughly equivalent to the levies collected in 2006 and 2007.

Perhaps most unusually of all though, is that some consumers may be entirely unaware of the levies, let alone their rise. Despite the rise from 21¢ to 29¢ per disc, newegg.ca is selling spindles of 100 for under $20. Considering the levy cost on them is now $29, that’s quite a financial hit. The price of blank CDs may rise soon to compensate, putting them at similar prices to blank DVDs which have no levies. Fortunately for consumers, most DVD players can handle MP3s now. Another great example how technology has advanced since 1999, and also ignored by the Copyright Board.

Source: Canada Increases ‘Music Industry Subsidy’ on Blank CDs

On December 21 2007, Richard Craig Lissaman of Calgary hid a camcorder in his clothing and went to the Empire Studio 16 theater. There the 20 year old joined the matinee performance of the Johnny Depp movie ‘Sweeney Todd’ on its opening day. Sitting at the left of the theater at the back, Lissaman hid the camera in a sock and hid the tell-tale LED lights on his camera with duct tape to avoid being spotted.

Unknown to Lissaman, an investigation financed by the Canadian and US movie industries had been underway for months – and his luck was about to run out. According to Crown prosecutor Rob Bassett, “The house lights were turned on and the movie was shut off and Calgary police arrested him. The accused (later) admitted he had recorded the picture.”

Charged with one count of the unauthorized recording of a movie, Lissaman became the second person in Canada to be charged under new legislation designed to crack down on camcorder pirates. Previously, under Canada’s laws the authorities had to prove that any camcorder movie recording was destined for sale, rental or other distribution to get a conviction. But with changes that took effect on June 1st 2007, any image recorded without consent could result in a prison sentence of up to 2 years.

Yesterday, Lissaman, now 21, pleaded guilty as charged and was sentenced by Judge Catherine Skene to $1,495 in fines and 12 months probation. During this period, Lissaman is excluded from going into any movie theater and is banned from owning or possessing any video recording equipment, including video-enabled cellphones.

Virginia Jones, a director of policy and legal affairs for the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association said: “We would have liked to see jail time, sending a stronger message. We hope this is just a starting point.”

Source: Canadian Anti-Camming Laws Net First Conviction

In a direct message to our friends at p2pnet Layton stated: “Torrent sites [...] are actually very fundamental to making a democracy work, and to helping human intelligence to be shared and exchanged. It’s about as fundamentally democratic as you can get.”

In the video message Layton is very clear. Throttling people’s connections is not an option. The Internet should be open and equal to everyone.

“What we want to see is the Internet used as a public tool — a public tool for exchanging ideas and I particularly want to say that if we don’t fight to preserve it, we could lose it. We don’t want to see hidden fees and gouging and service slow-downs all in the interests of promoting the objectives of certain large corporations,” Layton says in his message to P2Pnet.

With his statement, he joins his fellow party member Charles Angus, who has spoken out against against ‘anti-piracy bills’ and in favor of Net-neutrality many times before. In an interview last June, for example, he said that the proposed three-strikes law is idiotic, and completely useless.

“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,” Angus said. “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.”

Based on their views on net-neutrality and copyright bills, the New Democrats seem to be the best party to vote for. Much better than the Conservatives at least, who are supporting ACTA and bill C-61. Unfortunately, many Canadians are planning to vote for the Conservative, as they are awfully close to a majority. This triggered isoHunt’s founder Gary Fung, who’s from Canada as well, to encourage his Canadian users not to vote for them.

On the frontpage of isoHunt Gary writes: “I know about 3.7 million Canadians visited isoHunt last month, which is more than 10% of Canada’s population. So I ask all who read this to tell your Canadian friends to not be a slacker and vote on Oct. 14. I don’t care which party you vote, just vote any party but the Conservatives.” In addition to this statement, all Canadian isoHunt visitors will now see the following message on top of the page, which leads them to Gary’s statement.

The New Democrats seem to be a good alternative to the Conservative party. However, towards the end of the video message Layton scared us a little by saying: “The Internet belongs to Canadians,” but we’re pretty sure he is trying to say that all Canadians should have equal access to the web.

Source: Canadian Democrats are Pro BitTorrent and Against Throttling

In May 2008, isoHunt received a Cease and Desist letter from the CRIA, in which they demanded that isoHunt founder Gary Fung should take the site offline. If Fung didn’t comply, the CRIA said it would pursue legal action, and demand $20,000 for each sound recording the site has infringed.

A similar tactic worked against Demonoid, but the isoHunt founder didn’t back down so easily. “We have since tried to come to an understanding, but just as with the MPAA in the US, they ignored our offers of cooperation by the take down of .torrent links to their content files, so long as they provide sufficient identification,” Gary Fung told TorrentFreak.

Fung has pointed out that, like most other BitTorrent sites, isoHunt has a Copyright Policy, and takes down .torrent files when they receive an appropriate request. The CRIA simply ignored this, even though they have sent correct takedown notices to isoHunt before (and isoHunt complied), and continued to threaten with legal action.

As an act of self-defense, isoHunt has decided to sue the CRIA instead, and today Fung will file a petition (pdf) to ask the Court of British Columbia to confirm that isoHunt –and sister sites Torrentbox and Podtropolis– do not infringe copyright. “This is our preemptive strike with a narrowly defined petition for Declaratory Relief that we do not infringe, in anticipation they are going to file their own lawsuit that we do infringe (their copyright),” Fung told TorrentFreak.

“Our petition summarizes BitTorrent technology, its open nature and a whole ecosystem of websites and operators that has developed around it, that CRIA does not own copyright to all files distributed over BitTorrent or on isoHunt websites, and we seek legal validation that we can continue to innovate within this emerging BitTorrent ecosystem on the Internet.”

“Think of this as a follow up to the QuebecTorrent case,” Fung says. “We intend to take this all the way up to the Canadian Supreme Court unless CRIA settles with us out of court in any reasonable way,” Fung added.

This is the first case worldwide where a court will be asked to decide whether .torrent files, and BitTorrent search engines in particular, are infringing copyright or not. Among other things, isoHunt argues that they are just a search engine, like Google, and that they have no control over the files they find elsewhere on the web. The site is indexing other BitTorrent trackers and indexers, without human intervention, and allows its users to find content that is scattered across the web.

So, should BitTorrent search engines be held liable for the .torrent files that might point to copyrighted data? If so, what does this mean for other search engines, and sites such as YouTube? This landmark case might be the one to define how files can be distributed online, let’s hope the Court of British Columbia will make the right decision.

Source: isoHunt Sues the CRIA to Legalize BitTorrent Sites

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

The bill is controversial in many ways. Whilst supporters of the bill will point to the allowances for time shifting, format shifting, and the ability to ‘private copy’ (moving a song from CD to an mp3 player for instance). It will, however, prevent that activity, though criminalization, if there is any sort of technological restriction on it. Anti-copy flags on TV shows, DRM on music, or rootkits on CDs would mean that any attempt to make a fair use, would be subject to prosecution and heavy fines.

Perhaps even more important, uploaders, and to an extent, downloaders too (certainly those on torrents), will now be liable. While in the past, the RMCP has stated it won’t pursue uploaders, with new laws come changes in policy for those that enforce the laws. Bill C-61 contains a statutory damage amount of $500.

Limitation
(1.If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1), a defendant who is an individual is liable for statutory damages of $500 in respect of all the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes and that are involved in the proceedings.

This is a change from the previous wording, which gave the court latitude to drop that $500 to as low as $200.

Scene members, and torrent sites will also find themselves under increasing pressure. Despite claims that most torrent sites are not commercial, it’s not stopped industry associations from claiming they are, in order to get law enforcement action against them. From the act,

Circumvention of technological measure
(3.1) Every person, except a person who is acting on behalf of a library, archive or museum or an educational institution, is guilty of an offence who knowingly and for commercial purposes contravenes section 41.1 and is liable

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding $1,000,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both; or

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding $25,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six months or to both.

Although DRM has seen a decline in recent times, laws like this can only give content distributors incentive to bring them back, at least in Canada.

Source: Canada Proposes Draconian Anti-Piracy Law

The legal background to the case is available in TorrentFreak’s previous interview with QuebecTorrent back in November 2007. Essentially, it’s felt that the decision in this case will impact the future of all Canadian BitTorrent trackers and have more serious implications, explained here by Micheal Geist:

This case is one worth watching – while the knee jerk reaction of some will be to call for the site’s immediate takedown, the legal principles that come from the case, including the liability for linking to unauthorized content and the responsibility of site owners for content posted by 3rd parties, could have significant implications for search engines, bloggers, and anyone else operating online.

TorrentFreak recently caught up with the admin, Doditz, and he told us: “First of all I had to change my lawyer because he got sick and can’t represent me anymore. The new lawyer is Sébastien Leblond and his team at Fetch Légal LTÉE.”

Doditz told us that the next big dates are the 9th, 10th and 11th July, where there will be a summary analysis of the case taking place in the Court of Justice in Montréal.

In an announcement to QuebecTorrent’s 85,000 members he said:

The eventual hearing will require adequate preparation, which will require active involvement of our lawyers in the next three months. Notably, this will require our defense, which will rest particularly on account of the jurisprudence involved with the subject, and the actual evaluation of the law.

Doditz says he will personally have to participate in this process and added that it’s possible that some of the site’s users could be asked to testify too.

Of course, with all this talk of legal action, talk of lots of expenses can’t be far away either. Indeed, the fear of increasing legal costs is often enough to make someone cave in to the demands of the media industry, and they know this all too well.

Nevertheless, QuebecTorrent is standing up and fighting. Doditz hopes that given the wider implications of a negative outcome in the case – such as those indicated by Michael Geist – this will enable him to raise the funds needed for an adequate defense and sensible outcome. He estimates they will need “approximately $15,000, plus applicable taxes, so about $5000 per month”.

A final message from Doditz: “Thank you in advance to all those who will allow QuebecTorrent to defend your rights and the exchange of international culture.”

Anyone wishing to help the cause, can do so by clicking here.

Source: Pivotal Canadian BitTorrent Showdown Looming

According to reports, October 2007 saw the arrest of a 23 year old man, allegedly caught trying to record or ‘cam’ the new movie, ‘Dan in Real Life‘. He was also in possession of equipment to directly upload the movie to the internet and was likely to have been apprehended by police and theater staff wearing night vision goggles.

The man from Quebec is among the first to be charged under the new legislation which, according to Slyck.com, was rushed through in record time after intense lobbying by the MPAA in the United States.

If convicted, the man faces up to two years in jail. However, should his actions be considered part of a commercial operation, the term jumps to five years and could include forfeiture of assets.

Source: Police Charge Man in Movie Camming Crackdown

According to the Canadian police it is impossible to track down everyone who downloads music or movies off the Internet. The police simply does not have the time nor the resources to go after filesharers.

“Piracy for personal use is no longer targeted,” Noël St-Hilaire, head of copyright theft investigations of the Canadian police, said in an interview with Le Devoir. “It is too easy to copy these days and we do not know how to stop it,” he added.

St-Hilaire explained that they rather focus on crimes that actually hurt consumers such as copyright violations related to medicine and electrical appliances.

A wise decision, especially since we now know that filesharing has absolutely no impact on music sales. On the contrary, a recent study found that the more music people download on P2P-networks, the more CDs they buy.

Source: Canadian Police Tolerates Piracy For Personal Use

Movie theaters in Canada are now taking extreme measures to cut down this figure, even if this means less comfort for their paying customers.

Serge Corriveau, Director of the Canadian Motion Picture Distributors Association, highlighted some of the measures they’ve taken and told CBC: “Having people searching knapsacks and people going up and down the aisles once the movie’s started to see if they can spot somebody camcording. You can see also people with night-vision goggles searching through the crowd trying to see if they can find something.” Corriveau added that metal detectors will also be used in theaters across Canada, specifically for pre-screenings.

And if this isn’t enough, CMPDA have also introduced a reward program for theater employees. Catching pirates is a lucrative business now, as they can earn upto $500 CAD if they identify a person who’s trying to record a movie on his phone or camcorder. More details can be found in the “theater employee camcorder training guide“.

The theater owners sure do all they can to please their customers. A few days ago we reported about a 19 year old girl who was arrested by the police after she recorded a 20 second clip from the movie “Transformers” that she wanted to show to her little brother.

Thanks to the night-vision goggles I guess…

Source: Metal Detectors and Night-Vision Goggles Now Used To Catch Pirates

On the positive side, the move from the US to Canada is a large upgrade in hardware and bandwidth and it allows them to optimize their infrastructure, and start over with an improved setup. Isohunt received over $1,000 in donations on one single day, money that they will use to pay the bills of their $40,000 server park upgrade.

Isohunt’s sister sites Podtropolis and Torrentbox will also be up and running soon. The next move is to dodge the MPAA, that sued both Isohunt and Torrentbox (PDF) last February.

Source: Isohunt Back Online

According the research, only 14 percent of Canadians have downloaded music from P2P networks in the last 12 months. This is down from 15 percent last year. The percentage has been steadily decreasing over the past few years. It was at its height in 2002 and 2003 at 21 percent, then went down to 19 percent in 2004.

To dwell a wee bit longer in the stats, the demographic that had the highest filesharing activity was the young one. 39 percent of 12-17 year olds downloaded in the past 12 months, in comparison to 3 percent of those over the age of 46.

The RIAA’s Canadian arm, the CRIA commissioned a survey earlier this year that focused on the percentage of people that had ever used filesharing services at all. This number was clearly misleading as a whooping 69 percent of the 12-17 year olds and 64 percent of 18-25 year olds had tried using one or more of the many services at some point of time, but hadn’t necessarily kept using them. Therefore the CPCC’s figures seem to contradict the CRIA’s and quite clearly prove that filesharing is declining in Canada, even though certain parties would like to believe otherwise.

Source: P2P usage going down in Canada

With that in mind, tomorrow Giest launches 30 Days of DRM page and an associated wiki which will, “seek to provide a starting point for the kinds of protections politicians and policy makers should be contemplating,” at the same time forming a compilation of DRM policy issues.

While there was much to criticize about Bill C-60, the last attempt at copyright reform in Canada, “given continuing pressure from the copyright lobby and American government, the Conservatives’ bill may be, “far more extreme in its approach,” says Geist, stressing that anti-circumvention provisions which grant legal protection to technological protection measures (TPMs) are likely to be the most contentious issues.

“In plainer English, traditional copyright law grants creators a basket of exclusive rights in their work.”

“TPMs or digital locks (such as anti-copying technologies on CDs) effectively provide a second layer of protection by making it difficult for most people to copy works in digital format. Anti-circumvention legislation creates a third layer of protection by making it an infringement to simply pick or break the digital lock (in fact, it even goes further by making it an infringement to make available tools or devices that can be used to pick the digital lock).”

Under the DMCA, it’s an infringement to circumvent a TPM, “even if the intended use of the underlying work would not constitute traditional copyright infringement,” Geist emphasises.

The House of Commons reconvenes in a month and to highlight exceptions and limitations that should be included if a Canadian DMCA is introduced, starting tomorrow, each day for the next 30 days Geist will post a new provision focusing broadly on marketplace concerns, public protection, and fair circumvention,” .

“We should be working on a positive copyright agenda that includes an expanded fair dealing provision, reform to the statutory damages provision, the elimination of crown copyright, and protection from DRM,” he states.

“Instead, given the strength of the copyright lobby, we may need protection from the next copyright bill.”

The 30 Days of DRM page and the associated wiki will, “seek to provide a starting point for the kinds of protections politicians and policy makers should be contemplating,” Geist states.

Stay tuned.

p2pnet

Source: 30 Days of DRM

“Fans who share music are not thieves or pirates,” they state unequivocally. “Sharing music has been happening for decades.”

A lot of artist joined together and formed a coalition, among them:
Barenaked Ladies, Avril Lavigne, Sarah McLachlan, Chantal Kreviazuk, Sum 41, Stars, Raine Maida (Our Lady Peace), Dave Bidini (Rheostatics), Billy Talent, John K. Samson (Weakerthans), Broken Social Scene, Sloan, Andrew Cash and Bob Wiseman.

Viva la revolucion

The key principles of the CMCC are clear (press release)

Suing Our Fans is Destructive and Hypocritical
Artists do not want to sue music fans. The labels have been suing our fans against artists’ will, and laws enabling these suits cannot be justified in artists’ names

Digital Locks are Risky and Counterproductive
Artists do not support using digital locks to increase the labels’ control over the distribution, use and enjoyment of music or laws that prohibit circumvention of such technological measures. Consumers should be able to transfer the music they buy to other formats under a right of fair use, without having to pay twice.

Cultural Policy Should Support Actual Canadian Artists
The vast majority of new Canadian music is not promoted by major labels, which focus mostly on foreign artists. The government should use other policy tools to support actual Canadian artists and a thriving musical and cultural scene.”

All wise words. Finally

Michael Geist, the Canada Research Chair of Internet and E-commerce Law at the University of Ottawa responds:

No one should underestimate the importance of this development. After today, House of Commons committee hearings on copyright must include representation from the CMCC. Policy makers and politicians must take the time to consult with the artists themselves. Most importantly, government ministers will no longer be able to make policies in the artists’ name, when those policies represent the views of lobbyists, not artists.

more on this

Source: Don’t treat our fans as thieves, let them share music!