USA tells Canada to pass the DMCA or else

[SirFozzie]

:rolleyes: :rolleyes:

The U.S. Trade Representative has issued its annual report on global intellectual property protection, known as the Special 301 Report. Once again, Canada finds itself in good company on the list (a more interesting list would consist of countries who meet the U.S. standard for IP protection).

This year's report is most notable for its comment on Canada's copyright reform plan, announced just last month. The USTR has the following to say about Canada:

"Canada is being maintained on the Special 301 Watch List in 2005, and the United States will conduct an out-of-cycle review to monitor Canada’s progress on IPR issues during the upcoming year. We urge Canada to ratify and implement the WIPO Internet Treaties as soon as possible, and to reform its copyright law so that it provides adequate and effective protection of copyrighted works in the digital environment."


Apparently, the USA is upset that Canadian Courts ruled that offering music in Canada on P2P networks is not infringing, instead, they tax (heavily) Blank CD's and MP3 players (more on that in a moment). and send the revenue to the companies.

Also, Canada decided not to ban "circumvention devices" (like DeCSS, which allows you to play DVD's under Linux systems, there are no "licensed" programs for it), and avoided the takedown on notice program, where an ISP has to take down possibly infringing material on complaint from copyright holder, and the so-called infringer has to prove his innocence.. (remember the RIAA suing a College for having Usher songs available on a website, only to have it turn out that they were class recordings from Professor Usher's class? :D)

Apparently that just don't fly with the AA's (you know, RIAA and MPAA) and they have lobbied the US to put pressure on Canada to conform.

Gotta love it, huh?

[EagleFan]

Yeah, how dare they attempt to look out for someone's rights to their intellectual property. What nerve.

[EagleFan]

dola: Not actually sure if that classifies as intellectual property, but property none-the-less.

[Yossarian]

Its a controversial issue because its not just a case of 'preventing stealing' the DMCA pretty much puts a halt on a lot of good technology.

The roll-piano (think that's what it is called - the thing that you feed paper and it plays music), radio, vcr, tape recorder etc... these devices would not be legal under the new DCMA.

[jeff061]

The DMCA is like going hunting for deer and dropping a nuke.

[JonInMiddleGA]

The DMCA is like going hunting for deer and dropping a nuke.

Works for me. They aren't planning to eat them, just exterminate them.

[jeff061]

Yeah, unfortunately while the deer is the target it isn't the only casualty.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah, unfortunately while the deer is the target it isn't the only casualty.

Then I would strongly suggest not hanging out with the deer.

[Celeval]

Then I would strongly suggest not hanging out with the deer.
Planning on moving to the Carribbean sometime soon?

[Maple Leafs]

Wow, one bad metaphor, expanded on in five straight posts, by both sides of the argument. Must be some sort of record.

[jeff061]

Yeah I know, sorry.

Either John is totally missing the point or is trying to be obtuse. Just google search DMCA Abuse or something along those lines and educate yourself.

[Desnudo]

Or else what, Sir Fozzie? We shut down the NHL? Attribution would be nice too.

[Karim]

Or else what, Sir Fozzie? We shut down the NHL?
That'll never happen...

[JonInMiddleGA]

Yeah I know, sorry.

Either John is totally missing the point or is trying to be obtuse. Just google search DMCA Abuse or something along those lines and educate yourself.

Nope, or at least I don't think so (maybe so, I dunno, we'll see).

I suspect your point was that the "nuke" was taking out small-time file-sharers and/or the occasional innocent bystander. If so, I'm not being obtuse, I'm just unsympathetic.

Straight up, you're not likely to find too many people outside the music industry more in favor of the RIAA et al than me. My living also depends in significant part to copyrighted material, I don't have much use for thieves who violate recording industry copyrights since I see no reason to believe they wouldn't do the same to my material if it suited their wants.

I'm wholeheartedly in favor of stringent, nee Draconian, measures taken to protect the rightful owners of such material & believe in all my heart & soul that no matter what punishment they've received to date, it's more lenient than they deserved. You do NOT want to know what I'd like to see done to them, you really don't.

[FrogMan]

That'll never happen...
well, players/owners have already done it for a season and people barely noticed...

FM

[jeff061]

I think thats the miscommunication.

I am talking about the DMCA as a whole, which stretches FAR beyond file sharing. In fact I didn't even have the RIAA in mind. HP, Dow Jones, Lexmark, Fox/Paramount, and the list goes on.

Software technology is being stifled because the DMCA is so broad it threatens people it was never meant to in the first place. Its so bad I assumed it would be getting cut back sooner or later, but now I read they are trying to force it on other countries. Great.

[jeff061]

DMCA and Garage Doors (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60383,00.html)

[DaddyTorgo]

the DMCA is so draconian it makes me want to die

[JonInMiddleGA]

DMCA and Garage Doors (http://www.wired.com/news/technology/0,1282,60383,00.html)

Do you happen to know whether either of these cases been settled yet?
I don't particularly blame the companies for trying to hold onto everything in their grasp, but whether their efforts succeed/fail do seem relevant to the issue of whether existing law is "broken" or "needs fixing".

After all, I can file suit against SD for banning me, claiming he violated the terms of the ADA or something, but if it ultimately fails, then that seems much less the fault of the ADA.

[MrBigglesworth]

Yeah, how dare they attempt to look out for someone's rights to their intellectual property. What nerve.
IP laws are not in place to protect the profits of businesses. They are in place to ensure the benefit of the consumer by giving incentive for people to innovate. The emergence of P2P technology has done little if any damage to the innovation of music. Nobody out there is quitting music because of P2P programs. There are many artists out there, and probably the best of them, that would make music even if they didn't earn a cent off of it. In fact, it can be argued that the large record conglomerates hurt innovation by mainstreaming everything to ensure the highest profits per band.

[Karim]

well, players/owners have already done it for a season and people barely noticed...

FM
Come on, FrogMan... :D

[clintl]

I'm not in favor of electronic piracy, but if I were the Canadians, I'd give the US the middle finger.

[MIJB#19]

Always fun to have countries with governments who demand other countries' governments to take up their habits and hardly ever return the favor...

[Barkeep49]

While I am no fan of the DMCA Jon did bring up a good point. At least in the garage door case common sense prevailed (http://laws.lp.findlaw.com/fed/041118.html).