Thread Rating:
  • 1 Vote(s) - 5 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Canada's SOPA, Bill C11
02-12-2012, 09:18 PM,
Canada's SOPA, Bill C11
Canadian Government Has Consulted on Copyright but Won't Consider How Its Law Will Be Enforced

by Michael Geist

The government imposed time allocation yesterday on Bill C-11, a move that will wrap up second reading debate on the copyright reform bill on Friday and send it to the Bill C-11 committee soon thereafter. While the government's overuse of time allocation is certainly a concern, the debate is not over and several well coordinated tweets of support hardly mask the huge public concern with the bill's digital lock rules and proposed SOPA-style amendments proposed by several copyright lobby groups that has generated tens of thousands of emails to MPs in recent days. As described further below, the opposition stems from rules that will have an impact on the legitimate activities of millions, creating barriers to creators, students, journalists, researchers, and the visually impaired.

During yesterday's debate, several Conservative MPs emphasized that the copyright bill is one of the most consulted pieces of legislation in recent memory. For example, Canadian Heritage Minister James Moore stated "this is my 12th year as a member of Parliament and I can tell her that except for the Liberal government's Bill C-2, the response to 9/11, this legislation will have had more consideration at a stand-alone legislative committee and parliamentary and public consideration with all of the tens of thousands of submissions we received from Canadians in person and in writing and the consultations we did across the country before we drafted the bill."

The government is right when it says there has been wide consultation ((a recap of the 2009 copyright consultation here) . The question is whether it has taken the public comments into account and conducted a full analysis of the implications of its current proposal. There is reason to believe that it has not.

An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi

Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
02-13-2012, 10:06 AM,
Information  RE: Canada's SOPA, Bill C11
Great (and I don't throw that label around lightly) proactive Canadian C-11 Facebook group discussion at!/groups/6315846683/ if you don't shy away from/cognitively dissent/repelled by the Facebook trap/tool/medium of (dis)information and discussion.

Bill C-11 was formerly known and presented by Canadian Parliament as C-32. I did some work assembling a collection of resources and aggregated news on Bill C-32 here:

Bill C-32: The Canadian Copyright Modernization Act - From Radical Extremism to Balanced Copyright

More on the heavily intertwined WIPO initiated ACTA here:

Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) - Signed October 1st 2011

C-11 is basically the ratification of ACTA and the amalgamation/homogenization of US law of the WIPO, MPAA, RIAA directive known in the US of A as the DMCA

The big fish here is the transference and instantiation of extradition, jurisdiction, surveillance and enforcement from national bodies of WIPO and extranational directives via homogeneous national ratifications in lock step coordinated with the installation of supranational entities to execute the mandated "consensus".

The not only establishes a legal precedent of scalar (to eventually manifest globally) but enables and carves a path to deliver other agendas via the same structural organizational model which is both supercedant of the, already detached, national model of representative governance and leapfrogs, bypasses, obfuscates, abstracts and dilutes any recourse, objection and/or responsibility.

The approach to coup has been advanced by leveraging the disproportionate power that have been fostered by crony capitalism (fascism) and appealing to those benefactors, recruiting these corporate entities as allies to advocate a counteract the premeditated floodgate that facilitates a direct threat to their traditional business process. A force play is mandated due to the legally mandated by the accountability to the shareholders' quarterly returns, concentrated shareholder ownership is a conspiracy unto itself that would divert us to a tangent.

Considering the nature of the infrastructure and reach of the global internet organism makes it an appealing first step avenue to found an abstract pillar (legal, enforcement, management, regulation..) that mirrors and utilizes that physical construct that serves as the de-facto gateway for information exchange, media, commerce and is making a calculated move to encompass an increasing amount of human culture, resources and energy fueled by (manipulated and forced) participatory input.

C-11 (C-32), ACTA, The DNSSEC, WIPO, PROTECT IP, The Bradley Manning Trial/Wikileaks, Anonymous, STUXNET, SOPA.. all means to an ends of installing a global technocracy.

That's my personal chickadee's eye view as I see it, extapolated by my flock and processed through those voices in my mind ;), and I don't claim to be of direct avian descent so take this slice as is and extrapolate, deconstruct and build on it as you will from your stance.

[split second post-post edit]
I should express that global technocracy is only a Plan A pursuant to global rule, that can also be enact via or in tandem with other plans to enact centralized takeover that could include elements primary, secondary or tertiary of direct military force, religious epiphany, human depopulation, mass mind control or an iteration or three of Shock Doctrine style chaos that can enable well placed criminal tribal rule to expoliate with or without an intervention force assuming control to restore order.
There are no others, there is only us.
02-24-2012, 05:48 PM,
RE: Canada's SOPA, Bill C11
Looks like Annonymous is in on this now threatening the release of Vic Toews 'Skeletons' Icon_rolleyes

Video: Anonymous - Our Warning to Vic Toews & the Parliament of Canada

They did post this though
Vic Toews - - (613) 992-3128

Also being tabled at the same time Bill C-30 (Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act) that works in tandem with C-11 (The Ratification and Homogenization of Canadian Law with ACTA)

Here's Vic's email form letter response to inquiries to save you the time in writing to him.

Thank you for contacting my office regarding Bill C-30, the Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act.

Canada's laws currently do not adequately protect Canadians from online exploitation and we think there is widespread agreement that this is a problem.

We want to update our laws while striking the right balance between combating crime and protecting privacy.

Let me be very clear: the police will not be able to read emails or view web activity unless they obtain a warrant issued by a judge and we have constructed safeguards to protect the privacy of Canadians, including audits by privacy commissioners.

What's needed most is an open discussion about how to better protect Canadians from online crime. We will therefore send this legislation directly to Parliamentary Committee for a full examination of the best ways to protect Canadians while respecting their privacy.

For your information, I have included some myths and facts below regarding Bill C-30 in its current state.


Vic Toews

Member of Parliament for Provencher

Myth: Lawful Access legislation infringes on the privacy of Canadians.

Fact: Our Government puts a high priority on protecting the privacy of law-abiding Canadians. Current practices of accessing the actual content of communications with a legal authorization will not change.

Myth: Having access to basic subscriber information means that authorities can monitor personal communications and activities.

Fact: This has nothing to do with monitoring emails or web browsing. Basic subscriber information would be limited to a customer’s name, address, telephone number, email address, Internet Protocol (IP) address, and the name of the telecommunications service provider. It absolutely does not include the content of emails, phones calls or online activities.

Myth: This legislation does not benefit average Canadians and only gives authorities more power.

Fact: As a result of technological innovations, criminals and terrorists have found ways to hide their illegal activities. This legislation will keep Canadians safer by putting police on the same footing as those who seek to harm us.

Myth: Basic subscriber information is way beyond “phone book information”.

Fact: The basic subscriber information described in the proposed legislation is the modern day equivalent of information that is in the phone book. Individuals frequently freely share this information online and in many cases it is searchable and quite public.

Myth: Police and telecommunications service providers will now be required to maintain databases with information collected on Canadians.

Fact: This proposed legislation will not require either police or telecommunications service providers to create databases with information collected on Canadians.

Myth: “Warrantless access” to customer information will give police and government unregulated access to our personal information.

Fact: Federal legislation already allows telecommunications service providers to voluntarily release basic subscriber information to authorities without a warrant. This Bill acts as a counterbalance by adding a number of checks and balances which do not exist today, and clearly lists which basic subscriber identifiers authorities can access.

Thanks Vic, no need to mention how the question posed has anything to do with ACTA or C-11.
There are no others, there is only us.
03-06-2012, 07:47 PM,
RE: Canada's SOPA, Bill C11
From a blogger dedicated to giving the play by play, blow by blow synopsis and his personal opinion on the C-11 debacle.

Quote:Bill C-11 legislative committee day 7 thoughts
By Russell McOrmond at 2012/03/05 - 22:15

The seventh meeting of the C-11 special legislative committee was held on March 5, 2012.

Most of the discussion seemed very familiar, with the interactions from MPs matching what I wrote on the weekend as the theme that has emerged from committee. Near the end of the day we heard Mr. Lake going into details of what the bill actually says, suggesting (quite correctly in my mind) that many of the fears that some of the witnesses have about the copyright bill are simply not reflected in the bill.

Conservative MP Phil McColeman continued to talk about the alleged cost of "piracy" and those who "continue to steal", although Stephen Stohn from Epitome Pictures Inc. offered answers clarifying that infringement was nothing at all like "stealing" a physical DVD from Best Buy (speaking about marginal costs/etc).

I find it interesting that the people most likely to use the "theft" language in relation to copyright are the first to be trying to justify infringements of IT property rights which, while still not being "theft", are far closer than copyright infringement.

Society for Reproduction Rights of Authors, Composers and Publishers in Canada (SODRAC) said what you might expect a collective society only dealing with reproductive rights to say. When all you are is a hammer, you want everything to be a nail. Any conversation about rights that SOCAN may be involved in they didn't show much interest, meaning it isn't the overall revenue streams to music authors, composers and publishers they are most concerned with but how much money flows into them specifically. This is one of the failures of our excessive collective society based system. We need collectives that are there to represent creator and non-creator copyright holders, not the interests of the collective itself, and definitely never be allowed to be in conflict with the interests of creators.

Elliot Noss from Tucows did a very good job following-up on much of what Jacob Glick said in the previous meeting. He spoke about the benefits of the Internet to many aspects of the economy and society as a whole. On policy he focused on the harm which legislators could inflict on the Canadian economy, and that large part built on top of the communications infrastructure of the Internet, by over-reaching copyright legislation. He spoke about foreign businesses wanting to find out the Canadian climate and if some of the harm we are seeing in other countries (USA mentioned a few times) is being imported here. He spoke about how it would be better for Canada to have a more reasonable regime. He specifically said it is businesses we would all agree are legitimate, with us talking about Canada being a haven for innovation and not a haven for copyright infringement.

Given all the extremist proposals from the music industry and other witnesses attacking technology providers and innovation in general, I can understand why he focused on the harm that might be added to the bill that more directly impacts his company, rather than the harm in the bill from technological measures which impact other sectors and individual owners more.

Shaw is another one of the witnesses that represent multiple parts of what are often incorrectly thought as separate stakeholder groups: they are creators, broadcasters and Internet service providers. Shaw is looking forward to full implementation of notice-and-notice, including the required notice format and fee structure for copyright holders to pay to deliver notices. They want clarity on provisions to enable network PVRs (copy clearly permitted, but communication not clear), and want clarity on "making available" language which may confuse private communication with "to the public". All reasonable requests for clarification.

Stephen Stohn from Epitome Pictures may have been one of the more confusing witnesses. He made a thinly veiled reference to Mr Geist saying he is not a university professor with theoretical ideas on digital distribution. Clarifying at one point that he is friends with Mr Sookman, he repeated some of what many consider to be misinformation from this lobbiest. Much of Mr. Stohn's feelings on things like the harm from infringement (clarified it wasn't like "stealing" physical goods) or mashups (likes them except when someone else making money) would match far more closely to what Mr. Geist has to say than Mr Sookman. Sookman tends to abuse chicken-little rhetoric to claim non-existing problems exist, or to inflate smaller problems out of proportion. He is one of the lawyers I mention in my brief as being an enabler of infringements of IT property rights. I wonder how different Mr Stohn's testimony and understanding of the legal reality would be if he had a different and less biased lawyer as a friend.

Directors Guild of Canada supports the submission from the Canada Council on the Arts, which was more an arts funding document than a copyright one -- a familiar theme. They abused the "theft" language, and wanted to talk about authorship of Audio-visual works. They want writers and directors to be considered authors (no surprise there), something that ended up soliciting discussion with Mr. Strohn who suggested it should be producer. While each was presenting their own interests, this is a topic ripe for clarity at the international level via WIPO. It appears that different countries have very different ideas on this policy, which has to cause major problems with the international motion picture/television markets.

Writers Union, as a good Access Copyright devotee, wanted to do a little chicken little presentation about the word "education" being added to fair dealings. They discussed at one point how they feel they can't count on human behavior, suggesting that people expect everything to be "free". They claimed that universities going to Access Copyright competitors was somehow part of that "free", although I think the right way to think of that is "free markets" -- something the writers union seems opposed to.

The interaction with Mr. Hollingshead during questioning was interesting. When asked about incorporating into the Copyright Act the 6-factor test set out by the Supreme Court to determine fairness, he said he wanted market impact to be the primary factor. When Mr Lake asked him to prioritize the list of factors, reading out the factors (which get to the market impact through various angles), Mr. Hollingshead said he didn't want to rank the factors even though his complaint was that the supreme court didn't rank the factors. In general his testimony seemed to be about a lack of trust he has in students, educators, the general public and judges. I don't know that there is any legislative change that can be made to amend his lack of trust of Canadians.
There are no others, there is only us.

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
Bug The Kill Bill Deadpool CharliePrime 6 423 03-25-2014, 05:09 PM
Last Post: CharliePrime
Information New Immigration Stream – No Job Offer Needed in Canada FastTadpole 2 391 03-22-2014, 12:23 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Bill Cooper's lies and exaggerations macfadden 44 5,170 04-20-2013, 10:27 PM
Last Post: Skinski7
Exclamation Canada and US Border, Security, Military, Trade and Law Integration FastTadpole 6 2,272 03-09-2013, 07:38 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
Exclamation Massive Canadian Crime Bill: The Safe Streets and Communities Act (Bill C-10) FastTadpole 7 2,334 09-19-2012, 10:12 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Signing of Bill HR 347 - Obama Makes Free Speech A Felony datars 5 1,103 07-20-2012, 07:18 PM
Last Post: ezekiel73
  Bill C-38 protest has 13,000 websites going dark across Canada this June icosaface 2 580 05-30-2012, 05:51 PM
Last Post: operatorkos
Information Russian State Duma will Discuss a Bill on the Nationalization of Privatized Propertty FastTadpole 0 643 03-19-2012, 05:31 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  ACTA bill worse than SOPA/PIPA? Sovereignman 4 1,161 01-29-2012, 12:32 AM
Last Post: Easy Skanking
  Awesome statement From piratebay re SOPA & PIPA Sovereignman 14 3,958 01-25-2012, 12:02 PM
Last Post: nwo2012

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)