Downloading music in Canada now illegal on P2P

[Iscariot]

How the U.S. got its Canadian copyright bill TheStar.com - sciencetech - How the U.S. got its Canadian copyright bill
June 16, 2008
Michael Geist

Last week's introduction of new copyright legislation ignited a firestorm with thousands of Canadians expressing genuine shock at provisions that opposition MPs argued would create a "police state." As opposition to the copyright bill mounts, the most common question is "why"?

Why, given the obvious public concern with the bill stretching back to last year, did Industry Minister Jim Prentice plow ahead with rules that confirm many of the public's worst fears?

Why did a minority government introduce a bill that appears likely to generate strong opposition from both the Liberals and NDP with limited political gain?

Why did senior ministers refuse to even meet with many creator and consumer groups who have unsurprisingly voiced disappointment with the bill?

While Prentice has responded by citing the need to update Canada's copyright law in order to comply with the World Intellectual Property Organization's Internet treaties, the reality may be that those treaties have little to do with Bill C-61.

Instead, the bill dubbed by critics as the Canadian Digital Millennium Copyright Act (after the U.S. version of the law) is the result of an intense public and private campaign waged by the U.S. government to pressure Canada into following its much-criticized digital copyright model.

Link

 

[IJ Reilly]

Four American politicians talked about it. Oh, such unrelenting pressure! And obviously the CRIA were so completely cowed by this incessant badgering that they become utterly confused about where their own interests lay. In fact this is so completely obvious that Mr. Geist didn't even think to mention them or their position.

 

[Iscariot]

Four American politicians talked about it. Oh, such unrelenting pressure! And obviously the CRIA were so completely cowed by this incessant badgering that they become utterly confused about where their own interests lay. In fact this is so completely obvious that Mr. Geist didn't even think to mention them or their position.

Michael Geist blog:

Search Results:
CRIA: 270
Prentice: 264
RIAA: 32
MPAA: 36

Yeah, Geist never mentions the CRIA or the Canadian politicians behind the bill.

Nobody (as far as I know) is positing that the current copyright bill being tabled is occuring because of some fabled American conspiracy, or that somehow the CRIA isn't as interested as the RIAA in waging a battle against P2P. Your position is made of straw, and I'm frankly tired of you phrasing your "question" in a continually belligerent fashion, and thus this will be my last words on this. I've made it unequivocally clear, as has Mr. Geist, that we hold the Canadian government responsible first and foremost for any copyright legislation they pass. Noting a very strong American influence to both the timing and structure of the bill in no way reduces the government's culpability should an unreasonable bill be passed. The American DMCA has proven almost entirely ineffective in actually protecting the rights of creators, and I would like to see Canadian artists actually seeing some sort of recompense without suing 12-year olds or dead people.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Belligerent? You have got to be kidding. At least I hope so.

The article you posted argues that the legislation is being entertained as a response to US pressure and apparently nothing else, an argument for which he provides precious little evidence. He also conveniently ignores the evidence that interests within Canada want it. Note, I am not arguing the merits of the legislation, the DMCA, or any such thing. I am simply pointing out that rights holders within Canada seem to have the same interests as rights holders in the US. This comes as no surprise to me, anyway. If making this point is "belligerent" in your view, then I suppose there really is no reason to discuss it any further.

 

[Iscariot]

Belligerent? You have got to be kidding. At least I hope so.

The article you posted argues that the legislation is being entertained as a response to US pressure and apparently nothing else, an argument for which he provides precious little evidence. He also conveniently ignores the evidence that interests within Canada want it. Note, I am not arguing the merits of the legislation, the DMCA, or any such thing. I am simply pointing out that rights holders within Canada seem to have the same interests as rights holders in the US. This comes as no surprise to me, anyway. If making this point is "belligerent" in your view, then I suppose there really is no reason to discuss it any further.

(Your point isn't belligerent, but your attitude has been. I appreciate that you took the time to write your point out in full this time.)

I don't disagree that the CRIA has the same interests as the RIAA, nor does it surprise me in any way that they would want a similarly-styled bill. But you are greatly underestimating the power of US government and industry pressure on Canadian policy makers, especially given the current federal government. The current political landscape makes is very favorable for American industry to pursue their interests, and the CRIA is not the only organization that has been taking the lead from their US counterparts. I don't think Mr. Geist is reaching, and the crux of neither his nor my arguments rely on an American link. As I've stated repeatedly, I find the federal government responsible first and foremost, and I do not in any way blame nor hold malice for the RIAA, MPAA or any US based organization for taking any advantage they can of the current political climate. But I do not doubt for one second their ability to influence such a weak government with pre-existing strong American ties.

 

[IJ Reilly]

Please understand, this discussion is a reply to your statement that the legislation is "nothing short of a hand-out to American interests." It seems to me to be something quite a bit more. That was your argument, and the argument of those you offered as support. This has been my response. Sorry you didn't care for the tone, but you seemed to be ignoring my point, which was frustrating, since it was really the only one I was attempting to make.

 

[Iscariot]

Please understand, this discussion is a reply to your statement that the legislation is "nothing short* of a hand-out to American interests." It seems to me to be something quite a bit more.

It is a handout to American interests. It is almost exactly the same bill they fought for, and they enjoy considerable operating power in Canada. But they're blameless — who wouldn't accept such a thing if it were offered? If the bill passes it will be a failure of the Canadian government and the Canadian people, and no one else.

I don't think anyone is suggesting they are the architects, but they certainly have a lot to gain, and good reason to apply all the pressure they can.

Sorry you didn't care for the tone, but you seemed to be ignoring my point, which was frustrating, since it was really the only one I was attempting to make.

(Your first post was "Or not", followed by an accusation of me believing in "ghosts in the machine")