A Copyright Quickie: Canada Is About To Pass Sopa’s Evil Little Brother. Politely.

Posted: January 26, 2012 in Culture, Media, Politics
Tags: , , , , , ,

Image

I’m a Canadian.

We’re a quiet bunch; prone to enjoying hockey, drinking stronger beer than our friends south of the border, and lovers of fries smothered in cheese curds and gravy.

We also, apparently, have an inferiority complex when it comes to being evil dirt bags, because we’ve decided to pass our very own version of SOPA up here.

Only better*

Meet Bill-C11. Formerly Bill C-32. (I think they thought if they made the number lower people would care less about it?)

Or as we call it up here; Her Royal Majesty V, Zzzzzzz

We like our politics dry up here.

But, as innocuous as it sounds, C-11 does a whole lot that SOPA did with a few extra twists you might not find in the Wikipedia write-up.

Like your PVR? You can’t keep it under C-11.

Like ripping CDs to your iPod? Say bye-bye.

Hey, do you want to be able to unlock your $500 smartphone and take it to a provider less dedicated to violating your wallet? That won’t be allowed either.

Did you get accused of internet piracy but no evidence has been presented and a trial date hasn’t even been set? Under C-11 your ISP will now be forced to terminate your internet access.

And people say that governments can’t be bought.

We’re not going to get Google or Wikipedia to go dark up here. We don’t have as robust a tech industry to act as a public counterbalance to entertainment industry interests. We have a Prime Minister (that’s  French for Dear Leader under the current regime) who doesn’t give a suckling goat what the people think about his policies.

But we do have a lot more recourse in our political system to make politicians pay than our Yankee brethren do. (Yes I know I just insulted everyone south of the Mason Dixon line. I’m sorry. You trying caring about foreign geographical terminology when every person you’ve ever met from a particular country still thinks it’s the height of hilarity to ask if you live in an igloo.) We have things like votes of no confidence that can really bugger up a sitting House member’s day.

So, if you’re Canadian, or you’re friends with a Canadian, or you just really like bacon, click the link at the bottom of this article and share it with as many people as you can.

We can’t afford to lose on this one, Canada.

Besides…

Winners Go Home And Fuck The Prom Queen

-Sean Connery

And he would know.

*And by better, I mean shockingly, horrifyingly worse.

http://www.ccer.ca/canadian-copyright-reform/canadian-copyright-reform-back-with-vengeance/

There’s not much time left people.  Get active.

Updated 10:10 PM Mountain Time

For those who are complaining that C-11 as written isn’t SOPA-like enough to warrant this comparison, please read http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6257/125/ before commenting. Things have changed drastically with respect to this bill in the last week; the really ugly stuff (which has been publicly discussed by members of the C-11 committee.) is in the unpublished modifications in the wake of SOPA’s defeat stateside.

More herehere and here.

Updated January 28, 2012

A reader has submitted an excellent form letter to send to your MP concerning C-11 and asked that I post it for the use of anyone who’d like to email their MP directly. Here’s the link.

Updated January 29. 2012

Due to a complete disintegration of decorum and civility, commenting on this post will now be moderated.

Updated January 30, 2012 @ 8:25 PM

This is a terrific and easy to understand breakdown of why I and so many other people have massive issues with C-11. And kids, it cites and explains the bill sections, so if you’re going to hop up and down and talk about awesome this bill is, be prepared to present an explanation for these sections.


Advertisements
Comments
  1. this link says:

    Today, I went to the beachfront with my kids. I found
    a sea shell and gave it to my 4 year old daughter and said
    “You can hear the ocean if you put this to your ear.”
    She placed the shell to her ear and screamed.
    There was a hermit crab inside and it pinched her ear.

    She never wants to go back! LoL I know this is completely off
    topic but I had to tell someone!

  2. Anonymous says:

    So nothing? You can’t comment back and give me a description of when and how all of this is going to happen. The uploading music to your computer is going to land me in jail, how? Please tell me. Why is Microsoft and Apple one day going to corrupt my files. Nothing anything said here makes any sense. I just need you to tell me how it’s going to happen, not what they’re going to take from us but how they’re going take it from us and why. So far I get the feeling you don’t have an answer to anything, just crazy ideas.
    In case you’re wondering who this is, I’m the person who posted earlier about the same issue.
    Thanks and I hope you get back to me.

    • The Walrus says:

      Erm, I’m not the one who’s made statements with respect to windows updates etc. What I’ve stated will happen with respect to the application of this bill is limited to the restrictions references in the post itself.

      I’m glad you’re not worried. I am. So are a lot of other, very smart people. I choose to give more credence to their concerns and my own than the propagandistic whining of an anonymous poster. Just sayin’

      • Anonymous says:

        Sure bud, lots of smart people are worried. Actually, I think smart people think you’re an idiot. I think it’s still too funny that you’re still on about the anonymous thing, I still won’t change that one. I still do come on to this to laugh and I’ve talked to a bunch of other (smart) people who laugh at your over-paranoid ideas and laugh at everyone else who thinks this is really going to be a harsh life changer like some sort of big brother thing (that’s the biggest laugh and yes you most certainly make it sound to be that way).
        Thanks for having this silly site
        PS – Even if you don’t post this, I know you still read this.
        PPS – call me a troll if you like because I’ll be back to post silly comments on your silly site.

      • Anonymous says:

        You won’t answer my question because I’m a propagandist whining anonymous poster? Why not try schooling me instead of labeling me, maybe I’m lacking the knowledge to make an informed decision.
        To me, you’re still an idiot who can’t explain what I wanted to know.

  3. your the best, keep up the good work!

  4. I often read your blog, if you can, please post new stuff more often 😀

  5. Wayne Borean aka The Mad Hatter says:

    I mentioned a lobbyist for Music Canada aka the Canadian Recording Industry Association named Barry Sookman, who sometimes has op-ed pieces in the major newspapers. Well, he’s done it again. Here’s an article in the National Post about Bill C-11. Note that the article doesn’t mention that he is a lobbyist for Music Canada, it just makes him out as a “concerned citizen.”

    Where I come from that’s called lying.

    Wayne

  6. Wayne Borean aka The Mad Hatter says:

    Here’s an excellent article by Laurel Russwurm about Bill C-11’s enabler provision.

    Wayne

  7. anon says:

    41st PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION
    EDITED HANSARD • NUMBER 078
    CONTENTS
    Friday, February 10, 2012

    here is a link to the second reading of bill c-11. you’ll find the liberals and ndp addressed concerns about digital locks, consumer rights, pressure from the americans, etc, etc and it all fell on deaf conservative ears.

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Pub=Hansard&Doc=78&Parl=41&Ses=1&Language=E&Mode=1

    any canadian who thinks this bill will not affect SOME aspect of their current personal rights and freedoms in this digital age is delusional.

    god help us and protect us from evil ’cause it’s crystal clear the harper government certainly will not.

  8. anon says:

    So I buy a DVD and I want to make a copy on my pc, but it’s locked and I’m not allowed to circumvent those locks with software, right?

    So why is cnet (aka cbs/viacom/paramount pictures) giving me the software to unlock it with?

    http://download.cnet.com/Fly-DVD-Copier/3000-7970_4-10401978.html

    We should make sure everyone we know and care about (including our lovable mp’s!) downloads this software before it becomes “UNAVAILABLE IN YOUR COUNTRY.”

    Hypocrites..

  9. SOPA was first and soon we will have ACTA that will be a great deal worse in Europe in particular. If you work with You tube, Facebook or twitter or have previously shared a mp3 clip you will soon be a criminal.

  10. B says:

    they cant stop piracy with bills. So why even bother?

    As long as I have a windows computer i can rip all my cds onto hard-drive then move them to MP3 player. Unless they stop creating MP3 players that can play Mp3’s. If i got “harrassed” by government I would point at my legal cd library.

    But i live in the middle of nowheres like alot of Canadians they cant find me.

    • anon says:

      If Bill C-11 passes as it stands and becomes law, you will wake up to discover that sometime during the night while you were sleeping and your modem was on, Windows 7 performed an autoupdate and now none of your cd’s or dvd’s can be read by your operating system.

      Oh look – iTunes autoupdated too and now your playlists are corrupted. And OH NO adobe autoupdated too and that great ebook you downloaded is sealed tight.

      OMG firefox autoupdated as well and now I can’t access youtube and if I use a proxy my ISP is gonna keep me on file and give my info to anybody who asks for it without a court order….

      Extremism? Maybe. But while I wait for the sky to fall I’m going to write a few letters to my mp and finally print off that copy of “1984” I downloaded a few years back.

  11. Marketplace of Ideas says:

    Just *playing* music or video (off a CD, DVD, or any other DRM-infested medium) requires disabling a digital lock. The music and video is encrypted in the files, but it’s not encrypted when it gets to our ears and eyes.

    Checkmate, drafters, lobbiers-for, and would-be-passers of evil legislation!

    For that reason, recording (for your own future use) cannot logically be made illegal any more than listening and happening to have a good memory could be made illegal.

  12. Wayne Borean aka The Mad Hatter says:

    I thought I’d fed you some more links.

    Balanced Copyright is the CRIA Astro-Turf group on Facebook (I may have already included this one)

    New Op-Ed in the National Post by Barry Sookman, a Lawyer at McCarthy Tétrault and an adjunct professor of intellectual property law at Osgoode Hall Law School. What they don’t tell you in the article is that Barry is also a Lobbyist for Music Canada!

    Barry Sookman’s Lobbyist Registration for Music Canada aka The Canadian Recording Industry Association

    Makes you wonder why the National Post didn’t mention that.

    Wayne

  13. Anonymous says:

    Your most likely not Canadian but an immigrant. Harper is the best Prime Minister ever. You don’t know your politics and shoot your mouth off, yes you did insult the US also.

    • The Walrus says:

      Thank you, I needed a good laugh 😀

    • CrankyCanuck says:

      What a ignorant thing to say. We are all Immigrants here in the America’s. Paid to troll much?

      • Anonymous says:

        who gets paid to troll? you’re just an idiot who believes people really get paid. still doesn’t change your an immigrant and don’t understand our politics here in Canada.

    • Markus says:

      Im a born Canadian and I cant believe noone has shot harper yet. he is absolute radical maniac. all we want is to keep our free and open media and communication and for him to invest in industries that put well educated canadians to good use, not to extract bitumen from the god forsaken tar sands (that shit aint oil) and sell our beautiful forests for lumber. were better than that, really. instead hes gunna let our seniors work a little longer, cut all are arts funding. acually he even pulled funding for an art exibition by franke james because it spoke out against the tar sands! fuck that fucking guy! who wants mandatory minimum sentences for non violent lawbreakers and build prisons to hold em on the tax payers dollar and then hand the “business” over to private interests. who want us to allow MORE genetically modified foods on our shelves and no we dont get the privilege of knowing which have the GMO ingredients. who allows mutant frankenfish in are water that are killing off the native species and carry disease. who want to cut funding for the CBC!!!!!! the CBC god dammit! the only thing that is good in true here in Canada, and the one thing that unites us and gives canadians a voice, and he wants to scrap it, says other companies cant compete.. fuck that fucking guy!

    • Anonymous says:

      I note that you signed your name anonymous, that means you probably don’t exist. And by the way ‘Your mostly not Canadian…’ should be ‘You’re mostly not Canadian…’ as this is an abbreviation of You are. Get it!

  14. Herbert Gay says:

    SOPA was the first and next we have ACTA that is extremely worse in Europe especially. If you are using You tube, Facebook and twitter or have at any time shared a song clip you will soon be a lawbreaker.

  15. Stonecarver says:

    One thing that NO ONE seems to address in any way shape or form is that the original file sharing tools necessary, DRM circumvention, step by step instruction, comparisons and ongoing encouragement were provided by Cnet or ZDnet owned by CBS-Viacom with partnerships and of course download PARTNERSHIP with Disney , AOL ,MSN ,NBC and all of the rest of the delightful cabal behind SOPA, PIPA, ACTA , …bill C32 and now bill C11 !!! Now how could this not make these clowns liable for the very thing that they are working over time to have the peasantry tossed into jail for . Now this applies on whatever side of the border you are on , personally I could not care less about beer igloos or jingoism I do however care DEEPLY about my freedom and that of those I love , family and fiends on BOTH sides of the damn border

  16. Sheldon says:

    What you say makes sense. My poor interperation of the sections I cited may be due to the super power of twisting words, that politics lives and breaths. You seem much more informed than I initially perceived. Thus I retract my statement of you being misinformed. Try and resist being cynical; avoid cutting down people who decide to comment. Continue to provide valid counter points and you will gain the support of the people who’s opinions matter. Keep up the good work.

    • The Walrus says:

      Sheldon: I was curt with you for two reasons. First of all, your tone in your comment was, at points (like this one:”Afterwards I realized you must be wholly misinformed and as such have lost all interest in your article. To make a statement like “Like your PVR?You can’t keep it under C-11.” You must have never looked at the bill yourself. This article loses all validity to me now that I know your information must be strictly word of mouth.”) and for lack of a better term, dickish. You made assumptions and erroneous implications based on your flawed understanding of something we’d both read, and chose to air those assumptions and implications in a public forum and in a semi-hostile style. As such, I felt completely justified in responding in kind.

      Second, I’ve addressed the exact same argument no fewer than a dozen times in the comments for this article and linked to others sources that address the same issues. I’m sure you can imagine that answering essentially the same comment multiple times and still having people show up waving it around for another go is a wee bit frustrating.

      Anyway, thanks for reading.

  17. sheldon.galambos@gmail.com says:

    I was immediately outraged at the idea of this bill being in effect after reading this article. The first arguement you’ve written about ripping CDs to your Ipod or mobile and recording via PVR caught my attention. This was my biggest concern (and a common concern among comments on this page) because it seems outright UNFAIR. If you LEGALLY purchase media or subscribe for Cable, sattelite etc. why can’t you copy it for personal use? I decided to give the full bill a read over. Afterwards I realized you must be wholly misinformed and as such have lost all interest in your article. To make a statement like “Like your PVR?You can’t keep it under C-11.” You must have never looked at the bill yourself. This article loses all validity to me now that I know your information must be strictly word of mouth. We all know how concepts, ideas and so on get distorted the further along they travel by this method. As you request proof, I will provide. (since its lengthy i will not copy all of it but feel free to look up the section yourself)

    29.23 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to fix a communication signal, to reproduce a work or sound recording that is being broadcast or to fix or reproduce a performer’s performance that is being broadcast, in order to record a program for the purpose of listening to or viewing it later, if,

    If you read this section, you’ll see the list of conditions which more or less say if it’s obtained through legal means, you can copy it for personal use. So yes, PVR recording IS allowed.

    section 29.24 speaks similarily of “backup copies” of media meaning cd, dvds etc being copied for personal use. In this section it even says it is legal to burn this media if the orignal one you purchased was lost or damaged

    29.24 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright in a work or other subject-matter for a person who owns — or has a licence to use — a copy of the work or subject-matter (in this section referred to as the “source copy”) to reproduce the source copy if

    (again the list of conditions follows)

    Not all I have to say is negative. You’re writing is excellent and I enjoyed the article. You achieved giving the reader initial reaction you were hoping for, I just wish it was a little more informed. I want this fight to continue on against Bill C-11. If you wrote a more informed article that went a little more in depth, that would do wonders. Currently you’re suggesting we write our MPs yet you’re giving readers false information which would ultimately lose this fight for us.

    Here is a link to the bill in FULL
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&file=4

    • The Walrus says:

      Sigh. Sheldon, all of the restrictions I wrote about exist through the digital locks provision. Yes, you can record to your PVR, but now broadcasters will be allowed to flag any program they want and block you from recording it. Copying music is likewise technically legal, but only if you don’t have to circumvent digital protection to do it. Which is on all CDs sold in Canada now; you’re software (i.e. iTunes) automatically shreds the locks when it rips a CD. The caveat for every single “right” under the bill, including 29.23 and 29.24 which you cite, is that if a digital lock is present, all bets are off.

      The best response to this issue came from a letter from an NDP MP who pointed out that the bill is insidious in it’s deception as it grants rights you’ll never be able to capitalize on as the current level of technology renders them moot.

      You suggested reading the bill thoroughly. I suggest you try to understand it better before criticizing those who do.

  18. Ray says:

    Having moved from Canada to England with a full collection of my favourite PURCHASED DvDs I am now screwed with region codes and have trouble watching the movies I payed big money for. Thanks to idiot Governments and Movie industry idiots I have to run a chinese region free DvD player running on a power inverter (because more of the same idiots thought we have to entirely have different plugs and electrical currents in different countries. Also the expensive DvDs and CDsyou buy for big money wear out faster and scratch easier then the very first ones when the technology first came out due to faster burns (lesser quality, and cheap quality disks). I hate them for regions, house current stadards, etc and could just rip it all to a 4-8terrabyte hard drive and use my 110-220Volt puter to watch all my paid for movies BUT WHAT…WILL THIS SOON BE ILLEGAL everywhere. Forget it, I opt out sadly it is easier to download a song illegally then legit because the paid sites have such garbage menus and web design (forms after forms) I barely make sense here as I type in frustration but to say the least HACKERS OF THE WORLD UNITE!!!!! HACK for justice and good not for evil, hack to stay ahead of these government and corporate idiots. It is the underground net that made artists faster then any crappy music company and with a lot less financial resources KEEP THE NET FREE FROM SCUM GOVERNMENT CONTROL AND CENSORSHIP, FREE FLOW OF INFO WILL TAKE DOWN ILLUMINATI GOVERNMENTAL SWINE.

    • Sammy says:

      I have my Canadian DVDs in England too. And most regular dvd players (Sony, Toshiba, etc) here play multi-regional dvds – unlike in Canada. The only thing that get me is the fact my computer can’t play English ones and I don’t want to mess my regional settings on the computer because you can only do it a few times.

  19. […] deeply about the Internet and our rights online, I ask you to please help us in doing the same for Bill C-11. If you’re a Canadian, write your local MP [Do you Need a C-11 Email Template?], if […]

  20. Anonymous says:

    Hi, I don’t care if this gets deleted. I’ve seen the host of this site threaten to delete others and calling them government trolls for voicing their opinions and it would seem to me the bullying and governing of this comment section is pretty funny to me. “I don’t agree with what you’re saying and if you don’t watch what you say on my site, I’ll be forced to assume you’re a government troll and you’re on their side and I’ll also be forced to delete any further comment from you.” give me a break you idiot. LOL to this whole site and his shitty way of thinking and everyone who is buying into this Bill C-11, read the bill and look for yourself, don’t be lazy and just assume this clown has all the answers and he’s giving you good advice, and best of all, don’t bother your MPs with something this stupid, they have better things to do. In ten years from now, I’ll be uploading music to my Ipod while recording a show on my PVR and laugh at this site.
    PS – I am not affiliated with any government group, just a person who laughs and judges people on facebook who post this without really looking what this is really all about. I do and this is what I have seen and it makes me laugh.
    Keep up the good work guy with an apple in front of his face, I’m sure Rene Magrittee would love this as well.

    • The Walrus says:

      Right. Don’t bother your MPs with your legitimate concerns over their governance. Did you miss the memo about “consent of the governed?” Also, if you hadn’t noticed, I’ve allowed even truly negative comments as long as they

      a) contribute to the conversation in some way without being overly insulting and resorting to circular arguments and ad hominem attacks

      and

      b) don’t come from anonymous cowards who won’t put their own name on their opinions.

      The comments that have been deleted by me have been those which attack other commenters, those containing outright misinformation and those claiming the bill is good after being asked repeatedly for proof to back up their claims.

      You don’t like that and that’s fine. My website, my rules, and I think I’ve been more than fair, even to anonymous trolls like you. The only reason I’m letting your comment slide is as a clarification for others.

    • Markus Tapis says:

      I don’t think you’re a government troll, just an idiot. A is not A.

  21. Robert says:

    Such a moronic bill “Copying a song off a CD that you have purchased to your iPod or cell phone to listen to on your commute to work” results in a crimial recored.

    the copyright industry in canada tried to ban photocopiers, typewriters and a number of other moderinizations when they first came out. This bill is a horrible attempt to milk money for dying industires that are so out dated and cannot conform. We can’t move forward with bills like this. No wounder our middle class is shrinking, restrictions result in delay in any circumstance.

  22. Paul says:

    I see the politians in Canada are just as stupid as the ones in the US! They should all be fired as incompetent!

  23. Markus says:

    Wow there seems to be a number of government trolls in the comments section.

    If there is anyone here that is trying to promote or make light of this proposed legislation in light of the very serious criticisms it’s received for a paycheck, that is really shameful. I wonder how any of you sleep at night.

    Piracy actually boosts sales. I have a good number of friends who are hackers and in the warez scene, and they always support the products they rip by encouraging sales if you like the product. I have purchased a good number of music and other content because of being exposed to it first through privacy.

    Who actually benefits from this legislation? Is it the average person? The music artists?

    I think not.

  24. Wayne Borean says:

    I suggest that all of you read Copyright Update: C-11 and ACTA. Great article by someone who has been involved since the beginning.

    Wayne

    • Sorry .. but I,m starting to feel buggered ! we say no ,they find back doors under ground tunnels and apperently other countries to screw with.. all in an attempt to set a pres some where and do as they please.

  25. Without piracy I would have not bought my few newest cds. Having downloaded music genres allowed me to stumble on a few great artists. I just feel sad for those artists that are not publicized by major companies because they will never been seen, All this allows is major corps to isolate with MONEY, but it’s ok. If anything passes I know how to boycott and I have a voice backed up with plenty of others.

  26. lazureus says:

    I got a reply from my email today..
    ——-

    Thank you for your recent correspondence regarding your concerns with The Copyright Modernization Act. I am always happy to respond to the questions and concerns of my constituents.

    Recognizing the critical role a modern copyright regime plays in Canada’s digital economy, the Government of Canada is delivering on its commitment to introduce and seek swift passage of copyright legislation that balances the needs of creators and users.

    On September 29, 2011, the government introduced Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act. This legislation reproduces the provisions of Bill C-32, which appeared in the last session of Parliament. It will promote Canada’s innovation and creativity, and ensure that our copyright laws are modern, flexible and in line with current international standards. It proposes a fair, balanced and common sense approach that respects both the rights of creators and the interests of consumers in today’s market. Through this bill, the federal government seeks to promote Canada’s participation in the digital economy, a major element in ensuring the continued prosperity and competitiveness of our country.

    Detailed information about the Copyright Modernization Act is available online at http://www.balancedcopyright.gc.ca.

    Once again, thank you for sharing your views on this important matter. If you have any further questions or concerns please do not hesitate to contact my office.

    Yours sincerely,

    Hon. Gary Goodyear, P.C., M.P.

    Cambridge-North Dumfries

  27. As somebody very far south of the Mason-Dixon line, I am behind my Canadian friends 100%. I will try to help.

    • sajenn3 says:

      I followed your advice and wrote my MP. This is the response I received, I thought I’d share it with you and your readers:

      Thank you for your e-mail expressing your concerns with the Copyright Modernization Act.

      Digital locks are sometimes used by copyright owners to prevent their works from being accessed or copied without permission. Introducing legal protections for digital locks brings Canada in line with our international partners, as it is one of the requirements of the World Intellectual Property Organization Internet treaties. Thank you for bringing forward your thoughts on this important matter.

      Working on behalf of Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar is truly an honour. If I can be of any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact my office.

      Sincerely,

      Kelly Block, Member of Parliament
      Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar

      • The Walrus says:

        Heh, well that’s not ambiguous at all. The problem with that claim is that the digital lock provisions in C-11 go much, much farther than what is required by WIPO, and every single MP knows it. This is one of the more timid responses I’ve seen.

      • Wayne Borean says:

        Actually it doesn’t bring us into compliance with the WIPO treaties. The WIPO treaties specifically state that only the AUTHOR is allowed to use digital locks. Go read the treaties. I did.

        Now it may bring us into compliance with our trading partners, but they aren’t in compliance with the Treaties either. It isn’t our fault if they screwed up and got it wrong.

        Wayne

  28. Travis says:

    I wrote this to my MP.

    Hope it inspires some of you to so the same.

    Ed,
    I appreciate the response, especially when the the original email was produced for the masses.
    I myself make books. Digital or not, I believe that a good product sells itself. If someone takes my book and gives it to someone else because they like it. I don’t call that stealing. I say THANK YOU! If someone appreciates what I have made, I believe they will buy it. It’s not a hard concept to grasp. I do not think everyone on this planet is a thief.
    The idea of not being able to unlock my own cellphone is astonishing. It’s my phone, and now I can not do what I please with it? Since when is my property someone else’s? The whole idea of buying something is to own it. Unless you are renting? When do I actually own a CD I buy? Is it not mine to put on my phone, mp3 player or even transcribe it to my eReader… why cant I, It’s mine and for me.
    If you are interested in OUR BEST INTERESTS. Compare telephone services in Canada and Europe and do something about it. Stop telling me that a bill to restrict my rights on electronics is benefiting the Canadian consumer.
    I get that you want to ensure the internet is safe and that it complies with everyone else. But why can’t Canada take a stand and say that it doesn’t need to change any laws because the internet is no one’s property.
    Your message tells me that the Freedom that makes the internet so valuable is no longer something Canada values.
    Your message also states that it “will give creators and copyright owners the tools”
    As I understand the laws are already in place to protect copyright holders for people stealing their creative properties.
    If it is the artists you are doing this for.. please find me a band who broke up and stopped creating because “someone shared our song online”
    Canada already participates in your “digital economy” how in the heck do you think I wrote you this email.
    I also just made a purchase on paypal. And sold my own books on the internet. Do you not refer to me as a Canadian? Because I thought that I was participating in a “digital economy” just fine.
    “This Bill recognizes the many new ways in which teachers, students, artists, software companies, consumers, families, copyright owners and many others use technology”
    What is this bill going to do other than police the creation of new ideas.
    So according to you, I should be worried about the state of Canada’s “internet” And if I do not agree with this bill the internet will eventually destroy Canada.
    I am just an average person with an average opinion, But I have yet to see how this bill will benefit anyone who makes less than $100,000 per year.
    For your reading pleasure.

  29. Stonecarver says:

    One thing that NO ONE seems to address in any way shape or form is that the original file sharing tools necessary, DRM circumvention, step by step instruction, comparisons and ongoing encouragement were provided by Cnet or ZDnet owned by CBS-Viacom with partnerships and of course download PARTNERSHIP with Disney , AOL ,MSN ,NBC and all of the rest of the delightful cabal behind SOPA, PIPA, ACTA , bill C32 and now bill C11 !!! Now how could this not make these clowns liable for the very thing that they are working over time to have the peasantry tossed into jail for . Now this applies on whatever side of the border you are on , personally I could not care less about beer igloos or jingoism I do however care DEEPLY about my freedom and that of those I love , family and fiends on BOTH sides of the damn border .

  30. exxsandohhs says:

    Reblogged this on ex's&oh's and commented:
    Canada’s Version of SOPA.
    I know this is completely un-related to the nature of this blog but it is VERY VERY important that the Internet remains uncensored and are freedom remains intact.

  31. The Walrus says:

    This is the best response I’ve seen from an MP to the petition yet:

    “Thank you for your email regarding C-11, the Conservative government’s new copyright bill. Since 2004, New Democrats have pushed to have Canada’s copyright legislation brought into the digital age.

    We believe that copyright in a digital environment must be based on two fundamental principles – access for consumers and remuneration for artists. Unfortunately, the Conservative government has failed to meet these two fundamental principles. On one hand, the government directly attacks millions of dollars in existing copyright royalty to artists all the while undermining rights of consumers through their digital lock provisions.

    Given the above, we will not be supporting Bill C-11 unless the government is willing to amend the digital lock provisions and restore royalty provisions for artists.

    New Democrats are concerned about a number of measures in this legislation. First, we oppose the digital lock provisions in Bill C-11 as they go well beyond our obligations under the WIPO treaty. Legal protection for TPMs (Technological Protection Measures) should not override rights that are guaranteed to citizens under existing copyright legislation.

    Another concern is that this bill offers consumers rights they will not be able to exercise. The blanket provisions for digital locks will allow corporate interests to decide what legal rights you may or may not exercise. This unbalanced approach will ultimately hurt artists, educators and consumers.

    There are also serious concerns over the impact this bill would have on long-distance education. In particular, we are totally opposed to provisions that would require students and educators to destroy their class notes after 30 days.

    While we support the right of consumers to time shift and back up legal works, we oppose the government’s attempt to erase the right of artists to receive compensation for private copying of works. Further, the refusal of the government to update the private copying levy into the digital realm will cost artists millions of dollars a year in loss royalties.

    Finally, we oppose plans to remove mechanical royalties for radio as well as attempts to erase collective licensing rights in schools.

    While there is much we dislike in this bill, there are measures that we can support — for example, provisions that would bring Canada into compliance with the WIPO copyright treaties including the “making available” right of artists. We also support the move to ensure photographers are given copyright over works their works. We support efforts to extend fair dealing rights for satire and parody.

    For our part, we will try to improve this deeply flawed piece of legislation. First, we will look to amend the digital lock provisions to ensure there is a balance between the right of a creator to protect their work and the right of the consumer to access content for which they are legally entitled.

    In addition, we are committed to clarifying the fair dealing rights in terms of education so that students and educators are able to access works in the classroom while, at the same time, ensuring collective licensing regimes for the fair remuneration of creators are not undermined.

    Again, I appreciate knowing of your interest to have Canada adopt improved copyright legislation for the 21st century.

    Sincerely,

    Nina Amrov
    Constituency Assistant

    For/

    Lysane Blanchette-Lamothe
    MP | députée, Pierrefonds-Dollard”

  32. Chronia says:

    I got a reply from my local MP via email today and this is what it read:

    Thank you for taking the time to write regarding Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act. I appreciate hearing of your concerns.

    New Democrats want updated copyright laws to balance the rights of artists, consumers and rights-holders. We believe that Canada needs effective legislation to ensure artists’ royalties are protected; long-distance education opportunities aren’t hindered; and that young people aren’t subject to unfair, expensive fines.

    That’s why as it stands right now, we think Bill C-11 doesn’t have the right balance. NDP Digital Affairs critic Charlie is an experienced writer, broadcaster and musician, who has worked in the industry, and brings an abundance of expertise to his role. He will continue to work hard to improve this bill in order to address these above-mentioned concerns and strike a balance in Canada that rewards the cultural community for its valuable contribution to society. We hope the Conservatives will work with us so Canada can achieve the best copyright laws for the 21st century.

    Again, thank you for taking the time to register your views.

    Sincerely,

    Randall Garrison, MP
    Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca
    ______________________________________________________

    Not sure if this is a good thing or bad thing honestly….

    • The Walrus says:

      It’s more of an ineffective thing honestly. With the Conservatives holding a majority, it doesn’t really matter what the other parties think about the bill; as long as Harper’s minions continue to vote for the party rather than their constituents, the bill is going to get passed.

  33. Robert Glenn says:

    Wait, wait, wait, wait. Just wait. Ok? Now…. are you trying to tell me…. you all Don’t live in igloos??

    • Mat says:

      Well we did….. I remember some of the great artistry of my grand fathers generation. Alas many of our igloos can no longer retain there solid form year round. We did not want to complain, (it’s socially unacceptable to beat the retarded kid who shits in your lawn up here) but due to the lack of forethought by our neighbors to the south, our frozen ecosystem as been damaged quite severely. We understand it’s hard to tell the difference between the ground and let’s say a garbage bin, or rather the ocean with a proper dumping facility for you more hazardous materials. I feel if someone would of stood up to our neighbor to the south a little sooner then we would not be where we are today. Some find it intimidating to argue you with a country that has inbreed a super race of: no collar, beer swelling, white trash, automatic weapon toting morons, who’s only recent “achievement” is that they “got that there gay fag who lives down the way” . So to answer your question Robert Glenn…..No, no we do not.

    • sajenn3 says:

      Lol well some of us don’t 🙂

  34. Anonymous says:

    Sharing is caring(:

  35. […] of the MIGHTY INTERNET are finally beginning to crystallize against this bill. Here’s a great post about C-11 and it contains a link to a form letter for Canadians (or anyone who wants to pretend to […]

    • Charlene MacKenzie says:

      We seem to have a prime minister that really only cares about special interest groups. If you think that this is something that will not have a direct impact on allot of Canadians, you’re wrong. Harper caters to special interest groups, big pharma and very soon if we stay quiet, the entertainment industry. We need to speak out loud and strong and let Mr. Harper know that we take our freedom seriously and are not going to stand for any more.
      The fact that they will be able to monitor you’re internet use without a warrant should be a red flag to all Canadians.

  36. Joe C says:

    I’ve been skimming through the bill, and with the exception of the (perfectly reasonable) thou-shalt-not-unlock-thy-phone bit, I can’t find any of the things you claim. Can you please point me towards the relevant sections of the bill?

    • The Walrus says:

      Click on the link in the latest update.

      • Joe C says:

        That link (which to me screams conspiracy theory, but never mind that) doesn’t point me to some portions of the bill that you claim to be true, particularly the terminating of the Internet access and the inability to use a PVR. Can you please direct me to those sections?

        • The Walrus says:

          1)Which parts strike you as conspiracy theory Joe? He outlines exactly which parts of the bill support his claim. Do you have a rebuttal? I’d love to see it, as we’ve had tons of people claim that we’re wrong, but no one seems to want to present any evidence…

          2)Both the escalation provision and the PVR issue have been answered multiple times in the comments below.

          • Joe C says:

            Starting with which part screams conspiracy theory: the article seems to be suggesting that the law is designed to give MPAA a “butt-load of money”. Realistically, even if you’re watching a DVD on VLC or something, nobody is going to reasonably enforce it.

            Also, in terms of the ISP having to keep track of your personal information… they already do that. How do you think they plan to contact you in the event your bill is unpaid?

            I see where you’re coming from on the PVR bit, but I feel that you are unfairly exaggerating it. Being unable to record certain programs on a PVR is completely different from having your PVR banned. Despite this, I don’t see exactly what the issue is with content owners placing reasonable restrictions on their own content.

            I couldn’t find an answer to the termination of the Internet access; the closest I found was that this is what the music industry wants (according to your claim), but not that it’s in the bill. Again, please point me to the relevant section of the bill.

            • The Walrus says:

              “nobody is going to reasonably enforce it.” Tell that to the people the MPAA or RIAA have sued, sometimes on very bad evidence of infringement and with no actual findings to back up their claims of financial damage.

              1) “I see where you’re coming from on the PVR bit, but I feel that you are unfairly exaggerating it. Being unable to record certain programs on a PVR is completely different from having your PVR banned.” What’s the difference between having my PVR rendered utterly useless and banning it? Make no mistake, if C-11 passes no network would be stupid enough not to take advantage of it. PVRs damage ratings, which in turn damage revenue. If the networks have a legal means of stopping people from damaging their revenue, they’re going to use it.

              2) Here’s a summary of the bill from the parliament’s website: http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/41/1/c11-e.pdf
              Section 3.2.3 describes the various means possible for holding an ISP liable for infringements. While the passage expressly says that Notice and Takedown isn’t a viable option, no such condemnation is given for the notion of a “Graduated Response” option, which is exactly what copyright experts are concerned will be implemented. Under a graduated response scheme, ISPs would be required to discontinue internet service to individuals who had been accused of multiple infractions; a kind of 3 strikes and you’re out clause. As the bill stands, it contains the aforementioned Notice and Notice provision which requires ISPs to hold onto and make available to complainants the personal information of alleged infringing parties but, based on the language in the bill and requests made by music industry complainants a lot of people fear the very real possibility that graduated response provisions will be added prior to passing.

              It is important to note also that in order for Canada to ratify ACTA (Which it badly wants to do) which it has already signed, the implementation of “suggestions” like these is being used as leverage for allowing Canada to participate in the treaty. Do you really think, based on past trends with this government, that they won’t cave to these demands? I don’t.

              • Joe C says:

                To the enforcing bit: I can’t find an example of MPAA suing someone for playing an encrypted DVD using VLC. Can you please cite a specific case that I can look at?

                To the PVR bit: Are we talking about the same media organizations that offer many of their programs on-demand online, which is just as damaging to ratings?

                As for the termination of Internet access: Are you conceding that this is actually not part of the bill?

              • The Walrus says:

                To your first two points, you’re obviously invested for some reason in boosting this bill. Since your position runs contrary to that of pretty much every informed person I’ve read on the issue, I’d say we’ve hit the end of useful dialogue between us. To your second point, I gave you a government provided, plain language summary of the bill. One would reasonably assume that if it’s in the summary it’s in the bill. The fact that you’re clinging to minutiae makes me think, again, that you have some sort of stake in this.

              • Wayne Borean says:

                Ah yes, the Concern Trolls. They’ve been popping whenever discussions have gotten popular for the last three years. I’m convinced that there’s some skullduggery going on, but I have no proof. Of course if you log IP addresses…

                I do however have a list of most of the major players in the Canadian Copyright Wars. Be warned that:

                Barry Sookman is a paid lobbyist for Music Canada aka the Canadian Recording Industry Association
                James Gannon works for the same law firm as Barry Sookman
                Graham Henderson is President of Music Canada
                Richard Owens is a lawyer at Stikeman Elliot, who has clients at the Big 4 labels. He also teaches I{ issues at Osgoode Hall

                I’m mentioning these four in particular because all have had op-ed pieces in Canadian newspapers which did not identify their association. I called them on it at the time, and was of course ignored.

                Wayne

              • Fred says:

                Joe, I’m with you on this, the bill is not some evil conspiracy to give the “1%” ,lol, more money… It’s basically a bill to be current with today’s technology and to protect artist. If someone doesn’t steal content from the internet, then why would someone be concerned about this bill anyways? This bill is only bad if you have something to hide. Those people against it will use all sorts of excuses to claim why the bill is wrong because they don’t want to admit the truth that they are just upset that they won’t be able to download a bootleg copy of the movie they wanted to see or song they wanted to hear without paying money for that privilege just like other law abiding citizen. But to debate this against activist is pointless. One thing I found with them is, they want to be heard but never wants to listen…

              • The Walrus says:

                Fred, I’ve seen lots of this “the bill isn’t so bad and everyone who’s against it is dumb,” rhetoric. I assume you’ve seen the complaints people have with the bill; if you’re going to come out in favor of it, please refute them, otherwise we’ll be forced to assume you have some stake in the issue and are spreading misinformation for dishonest purposes.

              • Wayne Borean says:

                Horse manure. The WIPO Treaties which Bill C-11 is attempting to implement, were written in 1995, long before most of the technologies we are using today were invented. Tell me how a treaty that old can be usable?

                Wayne

  37. I believe in freedom of speech. I may not agree with what a person says but I will stand up and be counted to defend that person’s right to say it. Anything that limits my, or other’s, freedom of speech is wrong. I believe in this, the Information Age, that the Internet is sacred. It is what can help create a Global Family in our Global Community. The grassroots must never be cut off from communicating with their brothers and sisters. Any wedge–I repeat, ANY WEDGE–that a government puts in to prevent such communication in my view is at least obstructionist and at most dictatorial and fascist. Governments are elected to represent the people not control them. Occupy Your Heart. Be informed, learned to articulate your point and stay true to the cause of a free and just society for all. Humanity has been a misnomer to this point in history we need to put the humane in our world reality.

    • james@james.com says:

      If you think you have a right to make unlimited copies of ‘The Matrix’ and give them to all of your friends, then you live in a stupid fiction.

      If you want that system – the fine. Say goodbye to all entertainment, film, music and television – as well as a host of other protected content.

      The world’s IP laws have been the same since the dawn of time. 20 years ago you are not allowed to sell pirated movies – and it’s not the F-ING plastic CD’s that were the issue, it was the CONTENT.

      Fair IP protections have been one of the most important elements of the industrial revolution.

      Grow up.

    • mb.iordache@gmail.com says:

      @beyouressence
      Great post. Says it all !
      If people will accept this, it will be just the beginning of internet limitations.
      Quebec alone is already limited in terms of bandwidth. Packages of 120GB max, which is more expensive than our Ontario Neighbours which get for 20$ less, a standard deal of 320GB !

      I just have an allergy to this plague which they call themselves gOvernment !

  38. Grant letal says:

    All i can say is censorship sucks this is modern day book burning!

    • Anonymous says:

      Way to infringe on our freedom Canadian government. Thank you for spreading the word about this, but let me just say that it makes Canadians seem incredibly ignorant when we bash our “bretheren” south of the border. Keep in mind that Canada has a reputation for being a peaceful and tolerant country, but if you are constantly making fun of your next door neighbours, than that reputation is being tarnished. By all means, criticize the government; that is what governments are there for (redeeming factor about democracy) but not the people who live there and are subjected to it.

    • james@james.com says:

      Really? THEY ARE THE SAME LAWS THAT BAN YOU FROM MAKING 1000 CD COPIES AND SELLING THEM ON THE STREET.

      If you saw some guy selling fake copies of your favorite artist – you wouldn’t think anything of it?

      You are childish and fuc&ing stupid to compare this to ‘book burning’.

      • The Walrus says:

        Yeah, obviously the entire bill isn’t pure evil, if it were it wouldn’t have gotten this far. But the parts that are are really evil. This may not be book burning, but it is a massive curtailing of my rights to do what I will with a product that I own; it is a red carpet invitation for the entertainment industry to turn ISPs into the internet police and it does have to be stopped. Calling people names for having a contrary opinion to yours isn’t cool. Do it again and your future comments will be deleted.

  39. Anonymous says:

    Actually, you insulted the people north of the Mason-Dixon Line.

  40. drfreedom says:

    Big Media owns Ottawa. Fight back with your wallet, the most powerful weapon around: http://resistcorptyranny.wordpress.com/

  41. Anonymous says:

    Best of luck guys. Hope it doesn’t pass there.

  42. Thomas Tucker says:

    Good luck from the states, hope you can cut this SOB down to size

  43. Anonymous says:

    So let’s say providers like Telus drop their customers for using bit torrent or any other app out there, wonder how long Telus will stay in business after losing many customers. Contact your MP about this bill, don’t just think about it do it. My mom worked for Parliament and always told people you have a concern write your MP do it just don’t say you will.

  44. Anonymous says:

    So let’s say providers like Telus as an example drop their customers for using bit torrent or any other app out there, wonder how long Telus will stay in business after losing many customers. Contact your MP about this bill, don’t just think about it do it. My mom worked for Parliament and always told people you have a concern write your MP do it just don’t say you will.

  45. […] They.” “A Copyright Quickie: Canada is about to pass SOPA’s evil little brother. Politely.&#822… 26 Jan. […]

  46. […] however bring up a couple of the most disturbing points of it and send you to said good websites.  http://dearthey.com/2012/01/26/a-copyright-quickie-canada-is-about-to-pass-sopas-evil-little-brother… – is not the best read; however it’s to the point and will give you a good idea of what […]

  47. Katrina says:

    I shared this on the Canadian Libertarian Party fb page and twitter.
    Thank you for making it easy for the rest of us to be engaged on this matter

  48. RON DUNSTER says:

    This is, by my calculations, looking close at C-11, starting to look like the 1930’s. That is if anyone out there has studied world history. And I am wondering who the hell is pulling the strings. All of a sudden these radical changes in thinking are coming about. Keep an eye on other governments at the same time as you watch ours.
    There is something in the wind and all I can say is “People speak out loud and ask yourselves what is going on”. Then contact your government representatives in large numbers, not small numbers, and make some noise. THAT is the only way to be heard.

    • The Walrus says:

      The something that is going on is that world leaders have finally caught on to the power of the internet. The Arab Spring was a wake-up call that gave elected officials the world over nightmares. Tacking measures to regulate and control the internet onto bills ostensibly aimed at limiting piracy is a great way for a government to regain a bit of control under the auspices of doing some good. And it is, every last drop of it, manipulative bullshit.

  49. Junji Hiroma says:

    How to Bypass DRM Law in Bill C-11.
    1). Buy Record Of Band you like (Ex: Nickleback)
    2). Find Out It’s not DRM’d ( Vinyls CAN NOT Have DRM on them)
    3). Use a Vinyl to USB Device
    4). You can Legaly Rip The Vinyl into a MP3
    5). PROFIT!!!

  50. BNguru_Sasha says:

    Reblogged this on babynameguru and commented:
    This isn’t my ‘usual’ at all, but as a Canadian and knowing there are Canadian who read my blog: you need to know this.
    Americans, etc. may find it interesting aswell.

  51. Ian says:

    most commenters online are fairly intelligent about things like this… but this is just a swath of stupid. End censorship.

  52. caitlynn says:

    you know; i bet half of the comments here are all from Americans.. wasn’t it just a while ago that y’all were flipping out because SOPA and PIPA might have been passed for you? how about all of you chill the fuck out and mind your own god-damn buisness. just because someone posts somethig on here, meaning to inform us CANADIANS, about things that are happening in CANADA, doesn’t mean you need to put your two sense in.
    this blog was really informative; and it is exactly what is happening. people like you wouldn’t know because you haven’t seen LOCAL CANADIAN news.
    thanks for the info; i really like knowing what’s happening in my country. maybe you should link some website that have more information? i would like to know a little more about what’s happening.

    • The Walrus says:

      My way of looking at it is that anyone who cares enough to share the post is trying to help. What mystifies me are the people coming out in support of the bill. As for links, about two dozen new articles have popped up on the issue in the last couple of days; I’m going to list the most informative ones later on in the day.

  53. […] Canada Is About To Pass Sopa’s Evil Little Brother. Politely    29 January 2012, 2:16 am […]

    • Wayne Borean says:

      Good work Hanuman. Tell your friends to pass the message along. I’ve been talking about this stuff for three years. Most everybody thought I was a paranoid lunatic. I got told I was often enough.

      Now, finally, they are listening. Maybe we can get something done.

      Wayne

  54. Anonymous says:

    What happened to the freedom of speech in this country….

  55. Joe says:

    The sensationalism in this post is astounding. This is NOTHING, I repeat, NOTHING, like SOPA. This isn’t even *CLOSE* to SOPA. Heck, this bill is barely DMCA. If any of you had bothered to read Bill C-32 and respected opinions on the matter, you would see that it’s not really that bad of a bill. Even Michael Geist has previously expressed that the bill, although isn’t perfect, is a good compromise.

    This is Michael Geist on the issue of C-32: “When the bill was first introduced, my immediate response was that the government did a good job compromising on some very contentious issues (ISP liability, fair dealing, consumer provisions, statutory damages) but that the digital lock approach represented a huge flaw that undermined many of the positive steps forward. This remains my view” – http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/5316/125/

    The fact that one of our leading copyright reform advocates believe that this bill is a step in the right direction, perhaps you could stop spewing bullshit and listen to those with experience in the matter?

    Yes, the issue of digital locks is certainly a problem for some– but the bill does NOT need to be scrapped. It just needs a bit of massaging. Consider what the bill GIVES us: exemptions from remixes (SOPA doesn’t have this), exemptions for educational usage (SOPA does not have this), LIMITS to the amount on fines that can be levied for breaking the law (up to $5,000 [for all combined incidents] per individual), this is actually something consumers should SUPPORT rather than hate.

    Please, read the bills you bitch about. thx.

    • The Walrus says:

      See the comment from Rhys above. The limitations mentioned in this post are present, they’re just hidden in the legalese.

    • Daniel says:

      Regardless of the benefits of this bill, I don’t want any legislation passed on piracy… Not until the big corporation have put in the infrastructure for online service of their goods at a reasonable price. Don’t tell me that they don’t have a chance while piracy continues, How is it that Netflix is so profitable? I dont want to get into the semantics. IT is possible.

      Basically, I just don’t want a legislation to be passed and then they ll grab as by the balls and hose us down. Play it safe, on our terms.

    • rogervarley says:

      “but the bill does NOT need to be scrapped. It just needs a bit of massaging.” And just who is going to “massage” it, given Harper’s majority?

  56. Bella Bowie says:

    Great informative post. This is an issue that has supporters and naysayers in each political party, not just one. Regardless, any against the Bill as it stands should take the time to send the letter to our MPs, and spread the word where we can.

  57. […] about Bill C-11 (aka SOPA’s evil little brother), not yet in the committee stage, though on the horizon in Canada? While this is not to be confused […]

  58. devonin says:

    The bill as written has clauses that make it -EXPLICITLY LEGAL- not illegal, legal, for you to record media via PVR to watch again later as long as you aren’t building a library with it. Makes it explicitly legal to back up your media to protect against loss. Makes it explicitly legal to mash up copywriten media on Youtube if you aren’t making money from it. Makes it explicitly legal to violate copyright for the purpose of satire, parody or education. Makes a formal differentiation between individual and commercial copyright violation with lower penalties for individual violations.

    The only limiting thing it does is criminalize bypassing digital locks, or to manufacture/distribute tools to bypass digital locks.

    So yes, media producers (Who are already trying to lock their media ANYWAY) might be more encouraged to slap DRM onto their content because it’s actually criminalized to bypass it. Yes that means you might be able to pirate fewer things, download fewer things, and violate fewer copyrights, but this is hardly the end of owning media, and it actually makes -legal- many things that aren’t legal now but people do anyway.

    • Anonymous says:

      Are there so many people here missing the point? What C-11 is talking about is protection of a creators rights to their work. What’s been going on, and the general public is afraid to admit it, is that THEFT on a grand scale is being committed. Ripping CD’s, downloading illegal copies of movies, file sharing of copyrighted works via bittorrents, THESE ARE ALL FORMS OF THEFT!
      If you want to see a movie, rent it or go to a theatre and see it. You like music, pay for it. You like to read books by your favorite author, buy the book. If you’re consuming the entertainment product without compensating the creative mind behind it, then you’ve stolen it! Bill C-11 is all about NOT taking anything you want for free!

      • The Walrus says:

        This notion of copyright infringement being tantamount to theft is a MYTH howled at people by those who’d like very much to justify laws like these. Likewise, this notion that anyone has actually lost substantive amounts of money as a result of infringement is an unproven claim; in fact, the very few studies that have been done indicate that sales of entertainment related materials are up not down.

        If you want to be accurate when describing the most comparable crime to infringement, it’s not theft, but trespass. The owner of the content still owns the content; you haven’t deprived them of it, and they can still sell it to others. You’ve looked at it without buying. That’s trespass, not theft, and no one has ever tried to claim that a trespasser automatically causes a trespassee financial harm.

        Which is actually the point.

        By claiming that infringement is theft and getting all hysterical about it, lawmakers get to claim that laws like SOPA, PIPA, and C-11, alongside trade agreements like ACTA, are necessary evils. Just like the patriot act was a “necessary evil,” remember that? But all of these laws have vast overreach built into them, which have far less to do with copyright infringement and far more to do with censorship and control.

        Wake up.

  59. Anonymous says:

    Say what you want about us Americans but we acted against that SOPA crap and now it’s not happening. Let see if your superior recourse helps you goat lovers up there. har har har!! eh?

  60. Maia davies says:

    Just because piracy and digital theft have become commonplace doesn’t make it ok. Laws are made to protect citizens rights, and our rights to own and profit from our intellectual property need to be addressed and valued. I find articles like these to be hypocritical. Author, if you’d like to live in an anarchist type society where all property is free then say so and lets make the move, I’ll be the first to stand behind you. But that’s not the society you live in, and no other part of your life follows the rules(or lack there of) you believe should be applied to the Internet. In the world we live in now, bill C 32 (and now 11) is here to protect, among other things, a valuable Canadian product and their creators. The only shocking part is that this bill wasn’t passed 10 years ago when we needed it. You have freedom of information. This is about ownership. 

  61. phatannie says:

    wow. can I please have my 20 minutes back?!

  62. dlancelot says:

    A lot of people believe everything they read. Really…they’re going to be forced to remove our internet and PVR…well, we all know that definately won’t happen. So, either what you’ve said here is not completely true about the bill (I couldn’t see a reference to the actual bill proposal here), or, the bill won’t be passed because it’s absurd.
    I could write that seniors are turning into zombies, and there’d be a following on the internet…man, people are gullible.

    • dlancelot says:

      To further my previous comment, this is complete drivel, and here’s the source from the government…directly from the horses mouth as it were:
      http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&File=51

      There it says PVRs are completely legal. This bill is to punish people who are breaking the law(s). To further to that, the organizations you are ripping off are not going to sue your broke arse over your stolen copy of lady gaga.

      • The Walrus says:

        Again, PVRs are completely legal, but now broadcasters will be allowed to digitally lock any programs they feel are being negatively affected ratings wise by PVR technology. Under the bill digitally locked content will either only be allowed to be viewed once or, should the broadcaster choose, not at all.

  63. jared fremlin says:

    Why are you trying to kill the internet? Harper you’re really pissing me off.

    • mer says:

      it’s because what they are planning for the masses cannot be resisted through internet organization.
      if we cannot communicate with eachother we cannot organize against tyranny

  64. tlambert@mcsnet.ca says:

    Unfortunately Harper was the best of the worst,he is not always the instagater of these laws,there are and has always been groups soliciting gov policy makers to enact new laws in their favour.This has been in the works for years.I believe that not much will change even if it is past because it has to be policed & that has to be paid for by the end user,just like so many other laws enforcement is impossible except for the absolute blattend abusers .
    We all know the majority of these gov dignataries are only there for ther own best interest,you are just the financere to help further their end & FAT pensons.

  65. BovieWan says:

    Does everyone remember when their parents voted for Stephen Harper, and thought we were silly for saying anything against him (this must have happened a lot as he won the election that was SPECIFICALLY MEANT TO GET RID OF HIM). Rub this in their faces.

    • Rye says:

      Wow lol, do people realise that most of this shit was already illegal to do? Have you been caught or sent to jail for downloading a song or ripping a CD to your computer yet? I agree that this new law if passed will be major bullshit, but guess what? Everyone in the whole world (other than the amish) will be going to jail really soon! lol

  66. callmedum says:

    As an independant artist i depose this bill. I post ALL of my work on these so called “pirate” websites. Unlimited downloads, unlimited uploads and unlimited exposure. In the past year alone getting over 1000 new fans and grossing close to 20k from the exposure from these sites (based on my websites current google statistics and my website survey) This bill seeks to destroy my new found connection with my fans and a long term dream of making money doing what i love.

    • ACphotography says:

      I agree! I am a photographer and posting on social network sites is my main way to obtain word of mouth clients. I owe the majority of my success to “Pirate Sites”

  67. Anonymous says:

    Stop ragging on the Conservatives for this. They are the only ones to have voted against it so far. The NDP and Liberals voted for it. See here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HouseChamberBusiness/ChamberVoteDetail.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=41&Ses=1&Vote=78

    • RevanIV says:

      Apparently, you can’t read. The Opposition parties voted for THIS:

      “That the motion be amended by deleting all the words after the word “That” and substituting the following:

      “the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, because it fails to: (a) uphold the rights of consumers to choose how to enjoy the content that they purchase through overly-restrictive digital lock provisions; (b) include a clear and strict test for “fair dealing” for education purposes; and (c) provide any transitional funding to help artists adapt to the loss of revenue streams that the Bill would cause”.”

      Why on earth would a Conservative table the bill, and then vote against his own bill? Read more carefully next time, please. The Conservative party is pushing this through, NOT the opposition. The Opposition is trying to STOP its passage.

    • Anonymous says:

      I believe your link is the vote to stop the reading of Bill C-11.
      The Bill originally is proposed by a Conservative.
      http://openparliament.ca/bills/41-1/C-11/#page=1

    • Anonymous says:

      Conservatives voted “Nay” to this because it was to “decline a second reading to the c-11 bill”. So they voted to push it through a second reading after the amendments. Grats on not reading your own sources!

    • Anonymous says:

      They voted against AMENDING the bill..

  68. schwartz says:

    Shared on facebook, by a neighbor to the south. Renaming french fries was out of ignorance, and if any one ever asks if you live in an igloo, ask if they live in a teepee, or wigwam.

  69. Pls consider signing this petition:

    The government is trying to push through a set of electronic surveillance laws that will invade your privacy and cost you money. The plan is to force every phone and Internet provider to allow “authorities” to collect the private information of any Canadian, at any time, without a warrant.

    http://openmedia.ca/StopSpying

  70. Anne Wright says:

    I know you are Canadian, but if you’re going to refer to the Mason-Dixon line it might be good to know where it is. It certainly doesn’t refer to all the folks south of our mutual border. In fact, the baseball team with the name appropriated from real Yankees isn’t in Yankee land. Those who are usually referred to by people south of your border as Yankees (or damned Yankees as my father said; he came from south of the M-D line and married a damn Yankee) live in the 6 northeastern states.

  71. Anonymous says:

    With decorum and civility in tow,

    I do support you. I wish you Canadians good luck in defeating your rights violating bill. We’ll try to fix our healthcare system down here while you work that out.

    That said, I have never, and will never suggest that Canadians live in igloos. Minnesota is close enough, so I know better.

    • Anonymous says:

      lol I am Canadian and I just have to laugh at anyone who would believe the igloo line. Doesn’t make me mad, just laugh at the ignorant. We have friends in the south and they’re fun to hang out with. As for this bill, I don’t see it passing, with so many mad about it. So, I won’t worry. Don’t like clicking links I don’t know about though, so, consider this my vote against the bill. Good luck with the healthcare. Corbert loves to talk about it I noticed. lol

  72. Anon says:

    Anyone know when it’s going into effect and going to be passed?

  73. […] To learn a bit about the bill, click here and here. […]

  74. Anonymous says:

    re: PVRs. i seee reference to broadcasts being flagged digitally locked, so we cannot record. Question – is the tv industry ready to shoot itself in the foot? is that what Bill C-11 newly revamped as of January 30, 2012 is planning to do? scenario: if we can’t be home to watch a series or show because of the time the networks have decided to provide it to us, and we can’t tape it, we lose interest in the series. ratings go down. show is cancelled. advertisers are lost, money is lost. sure new show comes to take its place. but i (along with thousands of others) am busy on that that night and cannot watch it, cannot tape it, cannot get “into” it. so ratings never get high, show never makes it past season one, advertisers are lost, money is lost. has anyone thought that through?
    re: artists sites being wiped out. Question: how? if i record a song, a knitting pattern, a story, a series of photos that are soley mine and i wish to share/sell on the internet – are you saying Bill C-11 newly revamped as of January 30, 2012, can prevent me from using the internet as my sales medium?

    • Susan says:

      so much for treating this forum as serious.

    • James says:

      Bill C-11 does not have a provision to ban PVRs, quite the opposite. Much of what is written here about Bill C-11 is a fabrication of the true facts. This bill is similar to SOPA in some respects but mostly in how it protects the rights of artists and creators of recordings. Also Internet piracy is against the law and always has been. If I am trying to sell my music online I would like to see the people, if any, who seal it be punished. I would suggest that the writer of this article and all concerned Canadians take a good look at the real bill, which can be found here- http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&File=9.

      • The Walrus says:

        As has been pointed out many times, the digital lock provisions in the bill make the ownership of a PVR moot. Assuming that content providers (like tv networks) won’t take advantage of those provisions to safeguard their profits derived from either sales or program ratings (which PVR technology directly threatens) is the height of naivete.

        The bill is very careful; every piece of technology we currently use will still technically be utterly legal, as long as we don’t use it to circumvent digital locks. Which, of course, will be on everything. I really don’t understand people coming out in support of this bill unless they either don’t understand it, or have a dog in this race.

    • Rick says:

      Ever hear of Megaupload? It allowed people so share anything. The US government closed it down, seized the servers and people who used this site to save their own digital media will not ever get it back. Gone are their baby pictures, wedding pictures. Independent and unsigned musicians stored their music there, gone. They have no recorse to get their private non-violating property back. So yes Canada, it can hurt you, even if you are a truely law abiding citizen.

  75. Anonymous says:

    what’s the point of buying an i-pod if you gotta buy the CD first then upload it to your i-pod? Honestly waste of money.

    • Nuarius says:

      I believe the actual waste of money would be having to re-purchase the 500 some songs you have bought via CD over the last few years so so you can listen to them via another means. you know…. kinda like the article above was talking about.

    • Goodcat says:

      well, only that if you don’t buy the CD first then you are really stealing from the artist. But if you bought the CD first then this would not be an issue and there would be no need for the bill.

      • Rick says:

        I suppose you could punish everyone, that will make sure that you get the guilty. But what about the rest of us? Piracy does happen, but is it hurting the recording industry that much? Metallica is still making enough money to live in their mansions, George Lucas is still a billionare and Bill Gates… well he’s still Bill Gates. This bill is about taking away the rights of the people. When Yom Cruise has to drive around in a Honda Civic or John Travolta has to trade his private 727 for a Piper Cub, then I will believe that piracy has hurt the entertainment industry. Until then, there are better things for our politicians to worry about and waste our tax money on.

    • Rick says:

      I had over 3000 CD’s before they ever made an ipod. Should I need to buy those same 3000 albums again from itunes so that I can listen to them on my iphone?

  76. Pornophobic says:

    Where do you get you won’t be able to rip CDs or record PVRs? The would be considered private use, wouldn’t it? That’s covered under the section titled “Reproduction for Private Purposes”.
    I don’t see what the issue is with this bill, it actually gives rights to the people who created the works.
    I could write a novel, but I’m currently downloading a discography and should save my bandwidth.

    • The Walrus says:

      Take a quick gander through the comments and you’ll find the many, many times that question has been addressed. 😀

    • Mike says:

      Under C-11 you are not allowed to circumvent digital locks. For any reason. Movies are already encrypted with digital locks, so under the current legislation and technology you would not be able to rip a movie to your iPad.

      With this legislation in place,it is only a matter of time before CD’s follow suit.

      Your PVR is a different matter. Shaw selectively uses digital locks on broadcast tv today, but with this legislation they could be asked (by the distrubtors) at any time to flip the switch and lock all of it up. Then, using a PVR that circumvents those locks and allows you to save a copy of the show would be illegal.

      The main problem with this bill is the fact that while private use is allowed, it is expressly forbidden to circumvent digital locks to do it, rendering that right useless.

  77. Stonecarver says:

    i would be VERY interested how this bill and some of the more draconian provisions would survive the privacy commissioner. Either we have privacy or we do not and if some of these provisions were allowed to stand them the commission is effectively rendered nul and void

  78. Anonymous says:

    Just for the record, this does not prohibit PVR and on-demand service:

    29.23 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to fix a communication signal, to reproduce a work or sound recording that is being broadcast or to fix or reproduce a performer’s performance that is being broadcast, in order to record a program for the purpose of listening to or viewing it later, if

    (a) the individual receives the program legally;

    (b) the individual, in order to record the program, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection meas- ure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented;

    (c) the individual makes no more than one recording of the program;

    (d) the individual keeps the recording no longer than is reasonably necessary in order to listen to or view the program at a more convenient time;

    (e) the individual does not give the recording away; and

    (f) the recording is used only for private purposes

    (2) Subsection (1) does not apply if the individual receives the work, performer’s performance or sound recording under an on-demand service.

    • The Walrus says:

      Please see the many many clarifications of this issue in the comments below.

    • Anonymous says:

      Here’s your problem: “(b) the individual, in order to record the program, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection meas- ure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented;”

      There’s no reason they can’t put DRM on every damn thing if this passes, rendering your DVR useless unless you have one that can get around that, which would then be illegal.

  79. Anonymous says:

    “And people say that governments can’t be bought.”

    Really? People said that?

  80. AlexS says:

    “Meet Bill-C11. Formerly Bill C-32. (I think they thought if they made the number lower people would care less about it?)”

    I question your understanding of our legislature power when you say things like this…

    Would not recommend ANYONE to read this, just because of this.

  81. ken Rogue says:

    Here is the dirt on the Sept. version of C-11:
    the House decline to give second reading to Bill C-11, An Act to amend the Copyright Act, because it fails to: (a) uphold the rights of consumers to choose how to enjoy the content that they purchase through overly-restrictive digital lock provisions; (b) include a clear and strict test for “fair dealing” for education purposes; and (c) provide any transitional funding to help artists adapt to the loss of revenue streams that the Bill would cause

    The vote happens. All the conservatives vote to continue the reading. Every other rep voted to discontinue. Then…

    Pursuant to Standing Order 45, the House proceeded to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the motion of Mr. Comartin (Windsor—Tecumseh), seconded by Ms. Latendresse (Louis-Saint-Laurent), — That, in the opinion of the House, the thorough examination and debate of proposed legislation on behalf of Canadians is an essential duty of Members of Parliament, and that the curtailment of such debate limits the ability of Members to carry out this duty and constitutes an affront to Canadian democracy; and, therefore,

    that the Speaker undertake a study and make recommendations to amend the Standing Orders with respect to closure and time allocation, such that: (i) a Minister would be required to provide justification for the request for such a curtailment of debate; (ii) the Speaker would be required to refuse such a request in the interest of protecting the duty of Members to examine legislation thoroughly, unless the government’s justification sufficiently outweighs the said duty; (iii) criteria would be set out for assessing the government’s justification, which would provide the Speaker with the basis for a decision to allow for the curtailment of debate;

    So the speaker has held this up (through some trickery from the opposition, no doubt) so she could make recomendations that should make this more Canadian and address a curtainment of debate. That’s why this is being reintroduced tomorrow, or at least sometime before Feb 6th.

  82. ARealCanadian says:

    “Fucking dumb pot heads”? Excuse me sir or madam.. not that i agree with the legalization of marijuana but you dont have to be a FUCKING DUMB ASSHOLE and offend people with your slanderous jargon. And further more whats your point, you haven’t touched anything on the subject of Bill C-11 or SOPA or anything this blog has to do with. I at least just said something about it in that last sentence which is better than nothing at all and offending people for no good reason. Maybe you should come up with something smart to say either than fuck the government and fuck the army.. oh wait I doubt you dont even know what the fuck those are.. hmmm. You sound like a total premature adolescent. Go back to school, pick up a book or two and do us all a favour.. GROW A FUCKING BRAIN and come back with something more intelligent to say.

  83. Stonecarver says:

    Think back to WHERE you saw the download links for limewire ,Kazaa ,bit torrent ect..That would be Cnet or ZDnet owned by CBS-Viacom with partnerships and of course download links to ALL of the big boys behind SOPA,PIPA,bill C32 & Are now importing the next incarnation of this draconian sudo-legal hodge podge bill C11 . Think !! Who was it that gave step by step instructions on how to use this software using COPY WRITTEN music and movies/tv shows as examples ? Who was it that demonstrated the effectiveness of these very programs in side to side comparisons once again using COPY WRITTEN music and movies/tv shows as examples ? And last but no means least Who was it that hosted reviews & blogs extolling the comparative virtues of all of these EEEvillle file sharing programs ? Why that would be our usual suspects Cnet,CBS-Viacom,Disney,and all of the rest of the delightful cabel. Just a thought but by distributing and providing step by step instructions on effective use of the file sharing software according to the very laws being used to arrest every one from teenagers to Mega-upload wouldn’t that make this delightful cabel just as guilty if not MUCH more so ?

    Also wouldn’t providing the tools necessary, step by step instruction, comparisons and ongoing encouragement be legally regarded as IMPLIED CONSENT or at the VERY least entrapment? Just askin. It would seem to me that the first stop of call for artists to receive ( much deserved ) compensation would be the media companies that worked so hard to create, distribute,and encourage the very file-sharing tools they now decry

    So to sum up after SOPA ,it’s evil twin PIPA and any politicians or companies supporting them were given a reception much like a porcupine in a hot tub.The very groups that originally provided the tools necessary, step by step instruction, comparisons and ongoing encouragement for citizens to download media from the internet have brought their act north (with of course arm twisting by the VERY government down south that had their asses handed to them for this VERY same thing ) and are now pushing the government of OUR country into handing over de-facto control of the net and arranging to incarcerate ANY of OUR citizens for using the VERY tools they worked so very hard to get into use…Am I missing anything ?

  84. Brent says:

    Police have a hard enough time tracking unregistered guns. There is no way they have the manpower to police this bill.

    • Steve Sound says:

      Oh, that’s okay, they’ll get help from the big Telcos who will be using enforcement to put their ISP competition out of business. Face it, Canada has always been a banana republic where the big guys who own most of the market (pick any industry) get special treatment from the government and pretty much get to write their own legislation. It should be illegal for PMs and MPs to sit on corporate boards after they step down from office because (in the case of the Tories at least) all they seem to do is the bidding of their corporate friends while in office so that they can line their pockets once they ‘retire’ sitting on private boards. Disgusting self-serving pigs — they are traitors to all Canadians.

    • rhys says:

      Still too bad they haven’t ditched the long gun registry isn’t it? harrr

      the important information here has been dug out by myself in about 4 seconds of reading the bill:

      “29.21 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright for an individual to use an existing work or other subject-matter or copy of one…

      (c) the person, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection meas- ure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented; and

      (d) the person does not give any of the reproductions away.”

      back to the old DRM issue. if it had DRM, and i’ve purchased it legally, i’m not allowed to copy it for my own use.

      and later on it goes on to say that you’re allowed to copy it to any device you want for future use, as long as it’s not an ipod or computer that is hooked up to the internet.

      “(2) For the purposes of paragraph (1)(b), a “medium or device” includes digital memory in which a work or subject-matter may be stored for the purpose of allowing the telecommunication of the work or other subject-matter through the Internet or other digital network.”

      EVERYONE UNPLUG YOUR MODEM AND INVEST IN A TAPE DRIVE.

  85. Mara says:

    Unless I am completely misinterpreting the bill, PVRs are allowed and you can reproduce for later viewing/listening, so long as the program is obtained legally. (Section 29.23)

    Additionally, ripping the music from CD for your own use would be legal as long as you were to maintain possession of the original without giving it away, selling it, etc. (Section 29.22)

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&File=9

    • The Walrus says:

      This has been addressed before but I’ll respond a last time. Your PVR is allowed, however if a program is broadcast flagged by the network, you’ll only be allowed to watch it once and then be legally required to delete it, if you’re allowed to record it at all; some programs will simply be digitally locked to prevent playback.

      Likewise, in the case of CDs, you’ll be able to make a copy for backup purposes, but only if the content isn’t digitally locked (DRM protected for example) and even then only one copy and not for playback on another device such as your iPod.

    • To Clarify Ripping music from CD is legal Providing that the ripping process did not break any digital locks on the CD. In case of 90% of the new Cd’s being released on the market, converting them to MP3 breaks all DRM (digital locks on the media)

    • ken Rogue says:

      Ugg! This link is out of date.The new C-11 is expected tomorrow. The one above has many “repeals” where the really bad stuff has been deleted.
      Tomorrow it may be illegal to own an ipod…
      If this was the bill that gets passed our copyrite laws will have regressed. That would make me happy but I’ll bet that we are in for a bumpy ride

      • A Real Canadian says:

        “Tomorrow it may be illegal to own an ipod…” That doesn’t even make any sense. Then almost everyone is this country will be a criminal? i think not. Thats a pretty bold and totally insane statement.

        • Anonymous says:

          “illegal to own an ipod”

          Steve Jobs would be angry…

          • The Walrus says:

            No, he would just buy Canada 😀

            • Grace Alexander says:

              Steve Jobs is… DEAD 😛

              Seriously, though – as an American who had to sit through an amazing amount of vitriolic screaming on my Facebook wall by Canadian friends who were completely certain that the evil, evil US was going to cruelly cut their entire country off from the internet, this does have me quirking an eyebrow a little.

              And for the zillionth time – what he said. Yes, the bill says you can record for private use, AS LONG AS YOU DON’T CIRCUMVENT LOCKS – and nearly everything is locked, making the permission moot.

              That’s like giving my ten year old a brand new sealed carton of ice cream and saying “You can have all the ice cream you want AS LONG AS YOU DON’T OPEN THE CONTAINER!”

  86. ken Rogue says:

    OPPs. I missed the Sleeman buyout of Unibrou. All their beers are 9% or less now.

  87. MJ says:

    Dipshits that call downloading a right can clearly front a trillion for infrastructure and make their own Internet (capital I.)Then they can do whatever the hell they want.Same idiots would want aviation and driving without rules with the same consequences..You control what you own.Thats it thats all.

    • thresh says:

      How do you feel about generic medicine also being outlawed? Canada signed a treaty called ACTA last October and it’s almost ready to come into force world wide. Read all the details at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-Counterfeiting_Trade_Agreement and then please join the world signing the petition at http://avaaz.org/en/eu_save_the_internet/?fp

    • Clearly us Dipshits paying close to $40/month for internet is not enough of a drop in the Trillion dollar bucket. For your information we are the ones paying for the infrastructure. Lets ad this up.

      Roughly 250 million internet users in north america alone.Times on Average $40 a month( at least in Canada)

      That comes out to $10,000,000,000 and that’s just US and Canada. (Worldwide statistics show close to 2.1 Billion Users) if the cost of internet in the rest of the world is anywhere close to what we pay in north america then I am pretty sure that means that the users are the ones footing the bill for the internet while the Governments of the world just sit back and collect the taxes on it.

      so yes downloading is a right and information should be free.(not saying all software has to be free) But if i purchase something i should have the right to do with it what i please it is the right that i pay for by buying it.

      • A Real Canadian says:

        @ Timothy Kelley. I totally agree with “if i purchase something i should have the right to do with it what i please it is the right that i pay for by buying it.”. I don’t know how people come off saying its pirating or theft when you download something or someone gives you a copy of (a ripped cd, dvd, tape, vhs, etc) something. If i were to come into your yard and steal your car.. yes that would be theft. If i were to buy your album and give my friend a copy.. thats called sharing. All musicians writers and artists of any kind pirate ideas from others. I can also say 100% of the music anyone listens to was pirated or “stolen” from someone at some point in history. So that would make eveyboady a “theif” or “pirate”. Awwwe boo hoo now your all guilty or a crime. And one last thing for any nay sayers out there dont come in here calling us all thieves and pirates or what ever before you consider the fact that you are one of us too.. so really youd be telling yourself those things. and i lied.. one more thing.. if there are any pirates or thieves out there is THE ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY THEMSELVES.

        • A Real Canadian says:

          to add to my previous reply. I am a musician and I am more than happy to hear someone else play my tracks to me that means somebody enjoy’s it. On a side note if someone where making money off of my music that would be a different story. Sharing is one thing. making money off of someones copy written material is wrong.

    • ken Rogue says:

      I more agree with the person you are flaming. In public transportation you are allowed to do what ever you want with the car you just purchased. But we don’t own the road or the property we fly over. Driving/flying is a privelige, not a right. That’s because a vehical is a deadly weapon and the government is doing it’s job to keep people from dying at the hands of misusers. Not the same thing with copyright law.
      As I mentioned in a previous post last night. the recording industry has had 13 years to evolve with the internet, but instead, they chose to pay lawyers to make the internet evolve around them. There are many artists that make use of the internet and are eternally grateful to have the option of not selling their soul to the recording industry.
      SOPA/PIPA/C-11 is not about piracy. Megauploads is proof of that. This is about the entertainment industry controlling the worlds creativity.
      Access to the internet should be a right but as long as it’s not offered for free (at least at a basic dial up speed) then it is a privelige. And here in Canada we pay far too much for that privelige if we consider what we get in return.

    • Alan says:

      It is not about downloading as a right, It is about free speach, the rights of artists, and keeping a rein on big corporations.
      The same idiots who would have no problem with needing papers to travel within the country, and who would government and/or big business control all media without rules with the same consequences. .You control what you own. Thats it thats all

  88. There are a lot of thoughts out there and that is a great thing .. igloos dixie line harper privacy poor spelling … People make up their minds on this issue following what ever ed. background they have, everyday exposure, and their emotions. I didn’t support Sopa/Pipa and it is my fundimental choice to not supprt this C-11. I run windows ,drink coffee and smoke does this really have anything to do with C-11 ? NO.. but that is all I have been reading so far. Freedom allows for swearing but really do you need to ? point or no point we all need to read the C-11, don,t Bitch about it and decided what you as an individual want to do about it.

    • ken Rogue says:

      Well said, and we should all bear in mind that the bill is expected to be re-introduced tomorrow (Jan 30 2012). I see alot of the confusion in this thread is because someone posted the C-11 that was tabled in September. For those of us that read it closely, we noticed entire sections/subsections that were repealed (deleted). Those deleted parts are the parts that should scare the s__t out of you… or not. Let’s wait until tomorrow to see if SOPA/PIPA has had an impact on our PM.

    • Maddy Das says:

      I think its marketing to target the younger crowd, however raw it is very well implemented. And the younger generation is the right one to target, given volume of traffic on the internet (not corporation related i mean). I do agree with you it is a little hot though, can you direct the more sensible surfers to a more conservative website with the same content?

  89. Anonymous says:

    That is bullshit. Whoever came up with that needs to be castrated and let bleed out to death.

  90. Mr Cage says:

    Dear Admin, this is urgent. Please get in touch with me as soon as you can.

  91. Anonymous says:

    I know this writer is trying to be cute, but anyone who lives south of the Mason-Dixon Line is not considered a Yankee. Get your terms straight.

    • Liz Fuller says:

      And….that’s why he noted that he was insulting people south of the Mason Dixon by calling ALL Americans Yankees.

      The writer is well aware of his terms.

      • garey webb says:

        I am Southern..I am not a Yankee..I find it VERY offensive to be called that..It is as bad to people in the South as being called an N word to a black person..And our beer is 5% just like yours..My wife is Canadian and I spen lots of time there drinking your beer as well as beer I bring with me..

        • Anonymous says:

          Sorry Southern our beer is 7% not 5%. Might want to check your Google next time you speak of us Canadians and our Igloos. (Friendly tip Google will show you we do not live in Igloos)

        • Bunny says:

          Canadians are always slammed by Americans, and it goes both ways. Everyone gets offended over anything possible, it seems. We get tired of being asked if we live in igloos and that’s why we look at you as if you have three heads. Americans who have the nerve to ask that obviously don’t do any reading or research or just don’t have a clue about what goes on outside their state. We do live in houses just like y’all and we buy our groceries at supermarkets and even drive cars and trucks too! Congrats on marrying a bonafide Canadian gal!

          • garey says:

            Did I slam Canada in any way..No I did not..I was just making a remark about the 5% beer..We travel to Canada every summer for 5 or 6 weeks and park our RV in the parking lot of the Moberely Pub in Golden BC..I drink lots of beer in there and it is all 5% just like the beer here..I also commited on being called a Yankee..That is as offensive to someone Southern as calling a black person the N word..

            • A Real Canadian says:

              @ garey ~ Hell yeah Moberely Pub in Golden is tha shiz’nat! I used to work at Kickinghorse Ski Resort and Golden Taps!

            • Anonymous says:

              Just thought… I think ppl are talking about CANADIAN beer. Not AMERICAN beer sold in Canada.

              Way to off topic everyone! Let’s worry about beer while the government takes away your freedoms!

        • Fred says:

          I grew up in the American South, but still somehow know that many foreigners call all Americans “yankee.” Yes, it has a slightly derogatory connotation. No, it’s not as bad as the n-word; don’t be silly. I could see getting bent out of shape if he called you a cracker or redneck, but “yankee” isn’t a racially-charged epithet.

          I take it your wife isn’t from Quebec, where they have Le Fin du Monde (9% ABV), Don de Dieu (9% ABV), Trois Pistoles (9% ABV), Maudite (8% ABV).

          • garey says:

            My wife is from Golden BC..and yes to me it is as derogatory as the N word..we also have th higher % beers here in the South as well..And Im not being silly, ask anyone FROM the south not some bleeding heart that lived here for a short time.

            • Sleeper Service says:

              “Yankee” is as derogatory as the n-word? What is wrong with you? Do you really think that being called a Yankee is the same as being called by a word that was used to describe a group of people who were BOUGHT AND SOLD LIKE CATTLE? The n-word isn’t just offensive because it’s racist, it’s offensive because it’s used to slur a group of people who were imprisoned, enslaved, and sold like commodities. Get a sense of perspective.

          • A Real Canadian says:

            To my knowledge once upon a time being called a “yankee” was a good thing and havent you ever heard the song “Yankee Doodle”? I think its a big part of American history actually ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwHvyqNDUvE ). I personally dont mind being called a canuck or a flappy garbagecan head Canadian its all in good humour.. oh look i used a “u” in humour i must be a canuck or something..lol 😀

        • Anonymous says:

          I’m American and think this “Southerner” responded obtusely, yet with typical moronic Southern flair that makes me want to poke him in the eye.

    • Anonymous says:

      …this was addressed in the article as soon as Yankee appeared. Honestly, pull that plug out of your butt and relax.

    • Anonymous says:

      Ya cause that’s what’s important in this article. Moron

  92. Anonymous says:

    C-11 isn’t anything like SOPA. Go read the bill, people! There is NO provision for ANYONE to shut someone down!

    Also, Michael Geist is just plain wrong in his article.

    Bill C-11 makes it illegal to copy things *that you don’t have access to*! And even then only if there’s some kind of protection against copying it!
    Burning a CD to itunes? No problem.
    PVRing? No problem.
    Copying a DVD that you rent from the video store? Problem.

    Also, educational institutes are ALLOWED to copy things for the purposes of education. Geist’s claim is just plain wrong.

    Also a major point, the bill says what is illegal, it says what damages can be awarded, outlines a method of alerting the one infringing copyright and THAT’s IT. No censorship. None.

    You want to tell me I’m wrong? Go read the bloody bill for yourself.
    http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&File=9

    • ken Rogue says:

      It does, in fact, include provisions for action to be taken without due process. Any bill (which are most of the new Harper bills) that side step courts are taking the power away from the people and giving it to business interests is going too far. Regardless if its the internet, holistic medicines or collecting rain water.

      You are the one not seeing the big picture.

    • There is no provision in the bill that States you can transfer your cd to Itunes it only says that you can copy it.
      Burning a CD to Itunes is transferring it to another medium (*.mp3, *.ogg for example)it is not copying and is there fore Illegal under this bill It clearly states that you can copy for the sole purpose of backing up and since transferring it to mp3 is not backing it up it means you can not do it.

    • Anonymous says:

      Thank you. Thank you so much. My friends are all flipping out, and I’m like, “Come on guys. I’m in law, legislation is what I do. I read it, you’re wrong. Stop trying to be like the US. You’re shaming us.”

      I put this guy’s post in the same pile as, “Occupy Kingston.”

      • The Walrus says:

        Really? What kind of law? Do you specialize in copyright law? You say you’re “in law, legislation is what I do.” That’s a pretty broad and vague statement. The person who’s interpretation I’ve based this post on, Michael Geist, is a professor of law specializing in Internet and E-Commerce Law. Guess who’s opinion I feel carries more weight…

        • ken Rogue says:

          The provision is not there because it has been deleated along with a bunch of other subsections that have been deleted. (what do you think “repealed” means?) Once someone posts the C-11 dated after today we can accurately debate this bill. Not seeing ANYTHING at all about transfering or re-encoding is what makes me think there was something against it but these were some of what got repealed. Being decisive about these things is, after all, the entire purpose of this bill.

    • Anonymous says:

      The version you link to is the first reading from Sept 29, 2011, not the updated version.

    • Kimi says:

      Sorry Anonymous but I don’t think you are quite right. I know the issue is complicated, I work in an academic library. There are still very strict rules about what can be photocopied, and usually those rights are paid for by the institution. Our University is in the midst of negotiating a new contract with a provider since the last one became to expensive to maintain.

      To my mind there are two ways of understanding Canadian copy right law. Way one says that any time you change a media’s format you are breaking the law. The second way says that each stroage media (hard drives, CDs etc.) charge a tax for this kind of thing so you aren’t. I’m not even sure if that’s the only way to look at this either…

  93. TJ says:

    People – READ the bill. It is actually much more flexible than any legislation in the US. It is NOTHING like SOPA.

    There is absolutely nothing in this bill that makes it illegal to rip CD’s to your iPod. That would be ridiculous.

    The mis-information on this website is astonishing.

    • Ok so the bill does allow you to backup media, so yes you can copy your CD, no you can not transfer it to another medium and if you ever decide to get rid of the original copy of the CD you are legally bound to destroy all copies made.

      Copied directly from the Bill C-11 on the parliament of Canada website.

      ******Backup copies

      29.24 (1) It is not an infringement of copyright in a work or other subject-matter for a person who owns — or has a licence to use — a copy of the work or subject-matter (in this section referred to as the “source copy”) to reproduce the source copy if

      (a) the person does so solely for backup purposes in case the source copy is lost, damaged or otherwise rendered unusable;

      (b) the source copy is not an infringing copy;

      (c) the person, in order to make the reproduction, did not circumvent, as defined in section 41, a technological protection meas- ure, as defined in that section, or cause one to be circumvented; and

      (d) the person does not give any of the reproductions away.
      Backup copy becomes source copy

      (2) If the source copy is lost, damaged or otherwise rendered unusable, one of the reproductions made under subsection (1) becomes the source copy.

      (3) The person shall immediately destroy all reproductions made under subsection (1) after the person ceases to own, or to have a licence to use, the source copy.*******

      It specifically states that you can only make a copy of your media be it Music, Movie, or Software for Backup purposes. and its says Solely so any other reason under the law would not be considered.

      So you are allowed to copy said material not rip it and change the media form. if you have a CD it has to stay as a CD can not be transferred to MP3 .

      This article is not misleading however the bill does have some holes for which a case could be made should you want to try and circumvent it.

      • i am curious to know where the language is in C-11 that spells out what is the scariest aspect of this bill to me; that one could be accused of piracy without proof or without a fixed trial date, but be required to surrender internet access. Could the author of this post or someone who has read it and seen it point it out to me? Thanks.

    • The Walrus says:

      TJ 1) I keep hearing this refrain of, “Yeah, the bill sucks, but something has to be done.” Fine. Something has to be done. But doing the WRONG thing isn’t the solution. This is the same mentality that the US went through after 9/11; well it sucks that we have to give up all our rights and freedoms, but we have to do something, there are terrorists out there!”

      2) We’ve read the bill, that’s why tens of thousands of us are concerned. Have you? What exactly do you find so redeeming in this particular piece of legislation?

  94. candra96 says:

    I am very disturb with sopa and pipa. Now I can’t download movie and game for free and not easly , i hope this regulations can be stop.
    SuperGamsToday

    • ken Rogue says:

      You were never allowed to get these things for free. And because of all the pirates out there, the entertainment industry has taken the opportunity to try and slide a whole set of controls in to SOPA/PIPA that essentially give them the internet. This has nothing to do with piracy anymore.
      This is what it is about.— http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2dF-IsH0I

      • A Real Canadian says:

        @ ken Rogue – So you are saying back in the 80’s or 90’s you never got a mixed tape from a friend, no one’s ever burned you a cd? I highly doubt you never received either one of those. So from what you are saying that would definitely make you (or possibly your friends) “pirates”. Im sure you’ve gotten your fair share of “free” things that “You were never allowed to get”. Why are you trying to sound so smart here, what are you gaining out of this? Well.. Ill tell you something Ken you more than likely wouldnt exist in this world if there were no such thing as pirates because that is a HUGE part of our history and will always be.

      • A Real Canadian says:

        sorry ken i miss-interpreted you post. i should have read more before i rambled. its just and angering thing to me and i was flustered. i take back the reply i previously posted.

  95. ken Rogue says:

    Veoh was a company that had backing from many of the people that supported SOPA. The owner did everything he could to respect copyright laws but Universal music sued Veoh and his investors, individually.

    http://minglewing.com/#w/sopa-pipa/4f15f882e2c68903d2000004/uncensored-a-personal-experience-with-dmca-umg

    In the end he won in court but it cost too much financially and killed the business in April 2010. This should not have happened, but it did…without SOPA/PIPA.

    The law makers should be dismantling copyrite laws… not pushing new ones. A person writes one song and lives off royalties for the rest of his life. What kind of message does that send to hard working 40hr/wk slaves?

    “At work today I discovered a new flavor of ice-cream… time to retire”

    There is trillions of dollars wasted on this type of red tape and only two solutions. No copyrite laws at all or make everything an infringement and let the copyrite holders decide at their leisure who’s life they want to destroy. Our government is leaning towards the later with bill C-11

    I don’t in any way feel bad for the entertainment industry, They first butt heads with Napster in 1999, took them to court and won. That’s when they hit the snooze button and went back to sleep.

    That was their wake up call. But instead of developing a way to evolve with the internet, they just kept throwing money at lawyers to solve their problems for them.

    Stupid ass hairs deserve to drown in their own filth.

    • Anonymous says:

      Are you kidding me? No copyright laws? Have you ever created anything? Have you ever produced a piece of music or written a book? If you had, trust me, you would be far more supportive of laws that protect your intellectual and creative property. As a writer, the thought of throwing copyright laws out the window is like spitting on my work and my life’s passion. Crazy.

      • ken Rogue says:

        No as a matter of fact I would not be supportive of any copyrite laws. I have created a computer application that was shot down by a piece of copyrited code that I had no idea existed. The farthest I would be willing to support is unconditional 10 years on the entire audio/video work and ONLY for the individual that created it. Beyond that I feel its like copyriting genetic codes. It just makes lawyers rich.

  96. Anonymous says:

    not a canadian i just download frank marino for free and that bill pisses me off

    start making progress and get your government a decent job such as sweeping pavements .

  97. Stephen Harper is the new George Bush says:

    Governments can’t be bought? Who would say a stupid thing like that?

  98. Naomi Lir says:

    So…I still need to read all of the details of this bill (which I’ll do as soon as I post this). I was just wondering how they plan on policing the ripping CDs to iPods thing. I personally buy all of my music, but on physical CD’s – not digitally. I prefer something I can actually hold, that comes along with art and lyrics. When I listen to music, I constantly change my mind about what albums, artists, or songs to listen to, and since carrying around 10 CDs and a player is kind of impossible, I got myself an iPod. I rip the CDs and transfer the files onto it so I can listen to them on there. I don’t share my music, it’s just for me.

    Unless they destroy all current laptops or something, they can’t actually stop people from ripping CD’s and putting them on digital players. I heard something about the bill letting Border Officials check mp3 players for stuff like that, not sure if that’s true? And if so, what would that accomplish? People would just leave them at home. Heck, I would just bring the CD player and a few albums with me instead if it came to that. I need music to listen to when traveling, since I don’t fly and the bus rides are often long.

    • jakk says:

      Ripping your own purchased CD’s to your iPod is ALLOWED under this bill.

      While the bill isn’t perfect, half the information on this website is completely FALSE.

      • The Walrus says:

        Um, as many people have pointed out, that’s only legal if a)there’s no digital lock placed on the content, a practice which this bill seeks to make more prevalent and b) you’ve destroyed any other copies. Explain to me how that’s a good thing.

        • ken Rogue says:

          For anyone to say definitively whether it will or will not be legal is false. C-11 is expected to be re-introduced tomorrow (Jan 30th 2012). Only the PM and a few of his co-conspirators know for sure how the bill will affect the world. The old bill C-11 was put forth on September 29, 2011 and as seen here ( http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&file=4 ) has many “repeals”

          the only thing we know for sure is that the entertainment industry is evil and they will try very hard to wrap their tenticles of control around all the world governments.

          This is what they want to accomplish. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9h2dF-IsH0I&feature=player_embedded

          The information on this site is NOT false… yet. It is, however a good educated guess provided mostly Michael Geist, a law professor at U of Ottawa.

  99. Gavin says:

    I have to wonder just why anyone would think all of these broad-spectrum anti-piracy bills would be beneficial. The fact is that if they all, or even just some of them, pass, that essentially means the collapse of the world’s biggest market. Worried about their profits? Who will want to use the internet but all but bland corporate, news and government websites are safe? Even then it’s questionable whether they will be when one mistaken post of something they don’t own the rights to will put them under the gun too.

    The world as it is is walking down a treacherous path and the governments are leading it with the slogan: You can have rights, so long as you agree to have no rights.

  100. Anonymous says:

    When SOPA was trying to be passed there was a link that citizens from other countries could go to and sign a petition in protest that went through the US State Department. Is there a similar link for those who wish to protest against Bill C-11?

  101. I’m so envy that you guys in US and in Canada are just starting to introduce SOPA and C-11 policy. In Thailand, they have enforcing the same law for almost ten years now, but nothing really change. Time and time again you will see in the news that police catch a huge volume of pirated goods. But usually those officer them selves who actually ignore the piracy laws and sold the evidences to the secondary market right after they putt the bad guys behind bar.

    • ken.rogue says:

      These laws are way beyond what you have in Thailand. Even 98ish the US put laws into play that were more restrictive than your current laws. These new laws are not just about stoping piracy, they essentially make the entertainment industry into the censors of the worlds internet.

      SOPA has been temporarily defeated but even then, under the old laws, the US shut down, arrested and confiscated all the assets of Austrailian based Mega-uploads…

      These bills go way beyond fighting piracy.

  102. Me says:

    Nothing wrong with this bill. No one actually sat down and read the thing and are willing to believe what ever the posts says. It has nothing on making PVRS unlawful, or making the transfer of music illegal. It’s a scam to get you to join the petition. Any educated person could read the bill for themselves and understand that it really doesn’t change much of what’s already happening. It merely allows the law to update itself to keep up with technological advances. Happens all the time… And no it’s not a violation of the Charter, your definition of distribution is incorrect. Regardless, the Charter is not absolute here in Canada.

    • ken.rogue says:

      Funny you should say that, Funny in that this bill is not public yet. I suppose you are one of those people that see Michael Geist as a religious doom speaker.

      “Dr. Michael Geist is a law professor at the University of Ottawa where he holds the Canada Research Chair in Internet and E-commerce Law. He has obtained a Bachelor of Laws (LL.B.) degree from Osgoode Hall Law School in Toronto, Master of Laws (LL.M.) degrees from Cambridge University in the UK and Columbia Law School in New York, and a Doctorate in Law (J.S.D.) from Columbia Law School.”

      Here is his view on C-11’s similarities to SOPA/PIPA

      http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6257/125/

      • Ok 2 things here… first, it is false to say that the law isn’t public yet… I just read the whole damn thing my self.
        http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&File=9

        Second, while Michael Geist’s article is quite interesting to read. It is totally unfair to put on the same level what the lobbyist and company would like to see and what is actually in C-11. I agree we have to remain vigilant. But as written the bill is fair.
        Actually, truth be told, I wouldn’t be surprised if the opposition to this bill was organized from the said companies. Because as written, it is not giving them much. As well as expending our rights for the purpose of education, parody and satire. It is also expanding it to “sampling” as long as we keep in non-commercial activities. But we do have the rights to publish this new creation. And this is what they don’t like! That and the fact that contrary to what was in Sopa, this bill isn’t prepare to give them control of the net. Nothing about closing down site without first having to go to court. Nothing about “links” or search engine. Bill C-11 is simply trying to redefine the terminologies accordingly to the new technology. And you guys are walking strait into their trap!
        This law isn’t perfect in anyway. In fact, the close about the protecting measures could be defined a little bit better sine some of these measure are ridiculous ( I bought a game once that I could not install more the 3 time…. But I don’t keep all my game on my computer all the time, not enough space… so yeah, I had to find a crack for that) but it is not the monster you guys make it to be!

    • Sleeper Service says:

      “It has nothing on making PVRS unlawful, or making the transfer of music illegal.”

      Are you functionally illiterate? You’re right, neither of those things would be illegal. That’s not the problem. The problem is that they would be useless, because the law would prohibit circumventing digital locks (DRM), even for legal purposes. So if new music were distributed in a format locked with DRM, it would be illegal for you to break the lock even to use it for things which you have a legal right to do as a purchaser, but which the music industry may not want to allow. PVRs would be prevented from recording shows with the “broadcast flag” set, even though time-shifting is considered fine under current copyright law. In short, the law doesn’t make these activities illegal outright, but it makes it illegal to break any software locks that would prevent you from exercising the rights you would otherwise have.

  103. Stuart Bisenberger says:

    It doesn’t take too much intelligence to know that if we (Canadians) continue along this path of restriction and domination, there will be grave consequences that will enable great change. The cost for this change to take place can be avoided by making decisions now about the future well-being of the children of Canada and their children. We are a patient society, but like anyone… we can only stand by for so long before we feel we have to intervene in the direction the leaders of this Country and the leaders of the World (including the elite) are taking with the future for our Children. You are the most important Canadian there is right now at this moment. I personally feel you should start acting like it! You may not be remembered in 20 years, but the retribution of your actions and decisions could be felt for hundreds of years. Whether good or bad, that is your choice!

  104. Anonymous says:

    Yeah like your in danger of passing a social rights oppressing bill…

  105. v. mathias says:

    Yet another way for the government to put their thumb on us an push us down. Lets not let this pass.

  106. From an American Brother in the cause for freedom, Hail and good luck. Wish there was more on this side we could do.

  107. Jack says:

    Is there some kind of petition or rally to get behind? I’m a long way from Ottawa but I want to protest this.

    • The Walrus says:

      The petition can be found near the bottom of the post, or here Parliament resumes Jan 30th and it’s expected, since they have the votes necessary to pass the bill as is, that it will go to committee reading stage very very soon…

      • Wayne Borean says:

        The petition can be found near the bottom of the post, or here Parliament resumes Jan 30th and it’s expected, since they have the votes necessary to pass the bill as is, that it will go to committee reading stage very very soon…

        The petition is useful, however more useful is snailmail. Letters written to members of parliament travel postage free. If you send a letter to your MP, with copies to the Industry Minister, Heritage Minister, and Prime Minister, and all of the party leaders. This forces their offices to respond.

        You can use the form letter from the website as a base, but customize it. Add a couple of paragraphs at the start in your own words.

        Five days after you’ve sent the first letter, send a follow up to the same people, noting politely that you haven’t seen a response to your first letter.

        Five days after that send another. In each letter try to raise additional points so that they have to read each letter.

        Every five days send a letter. When you get the expected form letter back stating that Bill C-11 is designed to protect Canadians, send them another letter saying that is not how you read it, and that you believe it will cost Canadian Artists money.

        Keep sending those letters. Let them know that you care.

        Wayne

    • deb says:

      click on the link above under the Sean Connery quote.

  108. […] also, a…Via dearthey.com Advertisement GA_googleAddAttr("AdOpt", "1"); GA_googleAddAttr("Origin", "other"); […]

    • Chazz says:

      Good piece. You’ve got me worried. I’m also flabbergasted that this is the first I’ve heard of this in quite some time. I was aware of it last year but it seemed to fade away in the media to the point I guess I just thought it had become a dead issue (especially with the repudiation of SOPA and PIPA to the south.)

      So, in a word: GADZOOKS! Also? Shitballs!

  109. Robin Hairsine says:

    I think the questions one should be asking is “who’s interests are being protected by legislation such as this?”. Is it there to protect the “artists/creators” and their work? Or is there a deeper agenda? Such as the control of goods and services and the delivery of such commodities. Or could it be that the government is trying to control a public sphere where individuals are used to having enormous amounts of freedom? THESE are the questions that should be asked, in my opinion.

    The said bill in question: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=5144516&File=9

    I am going to leave you all with one quote; hoping that you will be able to see the correlation between what this quote is saying and Bill C11.

    “A term like capitalism is incredibly slippery, because there’s such a range of different kinds of market economies. Essentially, what we’ve been debating over—certainly since the Great Depression—is what percentage of a society should be left in the hands of a deregulated market system. And absolutely there are people that are at the far other end of the spectrum that want to communalize all property and abolish private property, but in general the debate is not between capitalism and not capitalism, it’s between what parts of the economy are not suitable to being decided by the profit motive. And I guess that comes from being Canadian, in a way, because we have more parts of our society that we’ve made a social contract to say, ‘That’s not a good place to have the profit motive govern.’ Whereas in the United States, that idea is kind of absent from the discussion. So even something like firefighting—it seems hard for people make an argument that maybe the profit motive isn’t something we want in the firefighting sector, because you don’t want a market for fire. ”
    ― Naomi Klein

    • ken Rogue says:

      The bill you posted is from September 29, 2011, It is schedualed to be re-introduced Jan 30th 2012 (tomorrow) For those that examined this posted bill you may notice the many “repeals”

  110. Anonymous says:

    I will illustrate how this law is unconstitutional.

    Furthermore the limitations on the use, distribution and sale of digital locks within Bill C-11 violate our Charter of Rights 2(b).

    2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:

    (a) freedom of conscience and religion;

    (b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

    (c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and

    (d) freedom of association.

    Here’s where C-11 does it:

    41.1.(c) manufacture, import, distribute, offer for sale or rental or provide — including by selling or renting — any technology, device or component if

    (i) the technology, device or component is designed or produced primarily for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure,

    (ii) the uses or purposes of the technology, device or component are not commercially significant other than when it is used for the purposes of circumventing a technolog- ical protection measure, or

    (iii) the person markets the technology, device or component as being for the purposes of circumventing a technological protection measure or acts in concert with another person in order to market the technology, device or component as being for those purposes.

    Ok read all of that. Provide is to distribute. To distribute could be to SPEAK. To distribute could be to integrate the code to a TPM breaker in the form of a play or source code or mathematics.

    I could not sing a DECSS song in Canada. I could not repeat instructions on how to view american netflix in canada.

    This violates my freedom of expression.

    This violates MY CHARTER OF RIGHTS AND FREEDOMS.

    • Cingeo says:

      This does not violate your Charter of Rights and Freedoms. How is the government stopping you from talking, or saying something?

      If you actually read the portion of the Bill it about “Technological Protection Measures and Rights Management Information”

      It is the portion of the Bill that discusses the “manufacture, import, distribute…technological, devices or components”

      At no time does this part of the Bill discuss or define distribute as to speak.

      So just don’t provide via the internet any diagrams or devices that will allow someone to make illegal copies or circumvent copyright protections.

      I agree that the government should ensure that the citizens have rights over corporations, but that does not give someone the right to steal something that is not theirs.

      Would you go and take a DVD or CD from a store without paying for it?
      What about if you download that DVD or CD from a website without paying for it?

      If you said no to either then you are not stealing, but if you said yes to either then you are stealing.

  111. Anonymous says:

    I’ll be ok with this bill as long as we get a provision added to it, that if there is any suspicion that my asshole has been violated by a service provider they have to refund me for every dollar I paid for said asshole violation.

    • ken Rogue says:

      Part of the lawful access bill states that the authorized law enforcement agent can order the ISP to lie about any legal violations.

      You’re screwed man.

  112. Wayne Borean says:

    Bill C-11 doesn’t address ownership. I proposed during the Copyright Consultation making copyright non-transferable except by inheritance. Anyone who wanted to use a work would have to lease the rights for a limited time (I suggested five years) with no automatic renewals allowed. This would put artists in the drivers seat.

    The idea terrified the CRIA/Music Canada. I got a lot of grief from them on this. Their current business model is predicated on preying on the artists by making them sign over their copyrights, and without those copyrights, the Big Four Record Labels would be in deep trouble financially.

    For reference, I suggest you read about the copyright claw back clause that exists in American Copyright law, which allows artists to start reclaiming their copyrights next year. Expect the labels to fight this to the death, even though they claim to exist to support the artists.

    Wayne

    • ken Rogue says:

      Ugg! doesn’t that clause allow for take back after 60 years? Who wants to spend a few months/years fighting the entertainment industry when they are 75-80+ yrs old. All this does is create more openings for lawyers. Don’t we have enough lawyers?

      I do like your idea about non- transferable property rights. That would solve alot of problems.

  113. Shandi says:

    This is ridiculous ! Just because you have no control about what we do on OUR OWN FREE time , and because it’s on the internet you want to stop this ? There are bigger problems to deal with then this ! Stop wasting all your time & effort ! Deal with the bigger things !

  114. Randy N says:

    Harper got his majority and now is going to punish us for giving it to him.

  115. Anonymous says:

    I agree with you and everything, but do you really have to make us out like such stereotypical blokes?

  116. Anonymous says:

    So.. is the opposition opposing any of this or are they all in this for some shady reason?

  117. Anonymous says:

    i agree wit hthe bill i think its fuckin sweet!

  118. Brita says:

    This bill scares the shit out of me. As Canadians we would lose so much of our freedom and so much of our dienependence. This is nothing more then an attempt to control every aspect of our lives, what we do, who we talk to, what we read and what we look at. I value my freedom and I value my ability to spend time online chatting wtih family and friends with out worry. I fear that if this bill is passed I will be put under suspician because I look at what new movies and music are available and preview them before I actually buy them. (I don’t want to buy or pay money to see something I will never watch or enjoy.)

  119. Anonymous says:

    Im a musician, and the main thing that bugs me about this bill is that it allows the “Big Guys” to stick to this “throw Sh!t at a wall” stratagy. The music on the radio these days is talentless garbage, and the only reason it sells.. is because they dont play ANYTHING else! Getting rid of copyright laws would level the playing field for a LOT of independant bands. It would force the lables to put out QUALITY product so that people will WANT to support the artists. Right now there are tons of “Superstars” with only one or two good songs on their albums.. and those songs arent even written by them! I say.. if you want to HELP the ARTISTS.. get RID of copyright!

    • TJ says:

      I’m an artist and I disagree with you completely. Not a fan of the big record companies, but something needs to be done to address piracy, and our copyright laws are embarrassingly outdated.

      • TJ says:

        actually we do agree on the fact that most music on the radio is shit these days.. but getting rid of copyright ain’t gonna change that. A lot of independent bands are suffering just as much from a loss of sales to downloading.

        If people really want to protest STOP buying shit music! But PLEASE SUPPORT the artists you love by purchasing their music!

  120. Anonymous says:

    you forgot to mention.

    like ripping off small labels that need to walk before they can fly?

    ya, soon enough, no one but big money will even have the time or money to write music and art with the way things are going, it needs regulation of some degree, c-11 is drastic but still needs something.

  121. gmoney says:

    That’s. Fucking gay

  122. Megz says:

    So does the cell phone proviso mean that carriers who have trade-in things will not be allowed to unlock the “trade-in” either in order to resell/reconnect them to their own services? And does the mobile device proviso not allow you to “transfer” music files you’ve acquired, say through iTunes store, to either your respective “i” device or smart phone(assuming your smart phone can read mp4 encoded audio files)?

  123. kayosweaver says:

    And just to point out the hypocrisy – a Swiss study shows that piracy actually INCREASES profits.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/erikkain/2011/12/05/swiss-government-study-finds-internet-downloads-increase-sales/

    Call your MP.

  124. Carol says:

    Will Sopa or the Canadian version win? Will they censor what the internet has to offer? I am a “Yankee” and my Canadian friends will lose with Sopa or the Canadian little evil brother? I want the internet, I want my able use the I-pad or anything electronic. Canada does not need to follow the leader with the USA.

  125. Anonymous says:

    Well, i don’t have an account so annon. They will use their Canadian neighbours as a prime example and hit you with it next. We already have the government in BC running everything even insurance, then of course the court system. So even if your in an horrific accident you get screwed However; that is just an example of a monopoly. Here lies the real dirty part. “Suspicion” or Suspicion of being suspicious. These are dirty open ended wordings so you can be targeted no matter how innocent or harmless you are. if you copied a CD or pirated an East Indian movie (which isn`t copywrited) if “They“ want to get at you they can. If you have an opinion about something that they don`t like there goes your internet and the ability to speak out or cause trouble. During the Rodney King riots here in Canada mainly in the Toronto area i saw what kind of hassle or damage Suspician can do. The only real suspcious thing about my friends was the colour of their skin and that was enough. SO think about everything that could possibly happen no matter how improbable before voting on a bill like this. Make no Mistake it can happen even to you.

    Mike

  126. xcheryl says:

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/Content/LOP/LegislativeSummaries/41/1/c11-e.pdf

    READ IT…..then decide for yourself…..a wise person told me to only believe half of what you hear and even less if you read it on the internet.

    • xcheryl says:

      So what DID we do before the internet? We BOUGHT music, books, etc. and those royalties went were they were supposed to go. People take way too much for granted now….royalty theft is sooooo easy on the internet.

      • aCanadian says:

        fiction.. what we DID was buy 1/10 of the music/books/.. because lets face it, people don’t have unlimited funds. As opposed to your OPINION, FACTS say we are now buying more of everything (movies, music, books….) and that is indeed thanks to the internet. and as for the money, it has never gone to the right people (the artists) and never will until the copyright industry is dead and the artists can communicate and deal directly with their customers. now fuck off troll.

        • xcheryl says:

          Mighty fine words to use to a fellow Canadian….just because I have a different opinion than you, you figure vulgar language will keep me shut up? I still strongly suggest everyone take the time to actually read Bill C11 and decide for themselves, instead of taking what is said here at face value….this is only one person’s opinion and if people cannot take the time to investigate and decide for themselves then our country is sadly lacking in individualism!!!!!!

          The copyright laws before gave copyright to the OWNER not the artist….the artist had to get permission from the person they sold their work to in order to reproduce it. Bill C11 gives copyright to the artist….not the owner.

          • Anonymous says:

            Before the internet we had to pirate our music by taping it off the radio, or pirate our movies by renting and copying them, or taping them off pay TV. Or borrow either from a friend and make a copy. So it was a little more effort than using the internet but it still happened, all the time. And no matter what the government tries to do to legislate our behavior, it will still happen all the time. This isn’t about collecting royalties it’s about legislating profit.

            • anon says:

              oh wow, what a blast from the past. i grew up poor as fuck, had to steal money in order to buy any music at all. but most of the time i’d just record all of my music from friends, the radio or library cds. and movies – lol? never went to the cinema, never bought a vhs movie. ever. i recorded movies off of tv, censored, with commercials, etc. and was perfectly content to watch them over and over that way.

              • TJ says:

                to aCanadian >> Artists CAN deal directly with their fans just fine now with the way things are. NOTHING is stopping that. NO ONE forces an artist to sign with a major label. They do it by CHOICE!

                If you think killing the copyright will save artists your delusional. All you care about is getting everything for free.

      • XVX says:

        You’re an idiot. People didn’t buy music even then. Besides the only artist worth supporting are those who are not of mainstream genre or from a million dollar movie industry. I buy cds from the underground bands I love because they really do need it and they`re making much better music than the sh!* that`s on the radio today. Its talent-less garbage. Don’t you see how much hollywood movies and actors get? The royalties are still getting to where they’re “SUPPOSED” to go. Sorry but the pretentious lesser percent of our population who get most of the money don’t deserve it any way. And this internet censorship also goes against our freedom. Would you like to live in a country with similar dictation to north Korea. No thanks!!!!! I hate supporting corporations and I certainly don`t like them being able to have a say in our government so much like America.

    • The Walrus says:

      K I took a look at that summary quickly just now, and that’s a much more plain language description of the bill (though that means that it isn’t the actual bill, so its conclusions would never be binding if contradicted by any language actually present in the bill) so thank you.

      That said,

      Just from a cursory reading I found plenty that supports the fears people have of this bill, including the stated issues of tighter restrictions on media transfer that has been digitally locked (so all of it, if this gets passed. Why would a recording label release a CD any other way once they know I can’t rip it and transfer it to my iTunes collection) and the notion of forcing ISPs to disconnect you if it’s suspected that you’ve committed an infringing act by making them responsible for any piracy that occurs on their networks (from the stated intents in the preamble).

      Bills are funny in that they bury the truly terrifying stuff in the midst of all the shit designed to put you to sleep. I wonder why that is?

    • Anonymous says:

      Yeah I read it, and I read the actual bill and the actual bill violates my freedom of expression in terms of communicating TPMs. If you don’t understand this you didn’t read the bill or your charter of rights and freedoms. There’s plenty of alright things with the bill, but there’s also the gaping violation of my freedom to communicate and to program.

      My programs are basically poetry, they are formal mathematics expressed in a language to communicate both to programmers and the computer. If you’re saying this isn’t expression then you have never actually programmed before.

      Don’t mess with my profession, don’t mess with my charter rights and don’t hold the text of a bill over my head and pretend I didn’t do the due diligence of actually reading it.

  127. Jason says:

    If this get’s passed I’m moving out of the country.

  128. Heil Harper!
    To hell with Canadians… It’s painfully obvious he doesn’t give a flying Puck about anyone but the powers that be who fund his tyrannical regime. Between this and his retarded crime bill I can see him making Canada into a city state where people will go missing in the middle of the night all the time.

    He and his party sicken me.

  129. Anonymous says:

    Oh and you can’t play DVDs on linux once C11 passes.

    Nope. The studios won’t allow open source to decrypt DVDs legally.

    • The Walrus says:

      Oh good, that one I didn’t know. 😦 Since I use Chrome OS and Ubuntu pretty much exclusively there goes my movie watching hobby. Where did you find that?

      • Anonymous says:

        You don’t use proprietary software in Ubuntu to play DVDs.

        The software you use today will be illegal to use when C11 comes out. Totem, VLC, Mplayer, anything that links to libdecss or libdvdread will be in violation of C11.

        Benign actions that you take today will not be legal.

    • Second Anonymous says:

      Of course you will be able to play your DVD’s on Linux … even today you can buy and use proprietary code on Linux (see CAD and FEM programs). Not that I’m a fan of close source programs, just pointing that you are wrong in this claim.

      • The Walrus says:

        Yay. It’s a battle of the Anonimie 😀

      • Anonymous says:

        Concern trolling is old. You are free to ignore ethics and focus on technicalities, but my freedom is being stripped from me and you don’t seem to care.

        You won’t be able to use VLC or other Free/Libre Open Source Software to play DVDs, so therefore in a FLOSS ecosystem such as Debian, you won’t be able to play DVDs.

        The law means that CSS owners have to license their decryption keys to a FLOSS project in order for a floss project to play the discs legally.

        This isn’t going to happen, it’s going to be illegal to use VLC on DVDs.

        Essentially what is happening is what I do today, go to the library, grab a DVD, and play it on my linux box using software that I use today is going to be illegal.

        “But if you buy specially licensed software”. Why should I, why should I give up my freedom to decode a disc that I have the rights to use? Tell me why the govt is ethically justified in taking away my freedom.

        Just because I can do something in the privacy of my home doesn’t make it legal, but it doesn’t mean you should take my legal freedom to do so away from me.

  130. jeremie says:

    This sound like a job…for…….Super-ultra-mega-blackhats!! , or perhaps proxy everything, why are we paying the governments to invade our privacy and control our every move ?

  131. Anonymous says:

    As nothing is really or truely creative in this day and age, wouldn’t that mean anyone and everyone could put a digital lock on any subject or property? Name something that is fresh, original, and I am willing to bet that it (or some part or fraction of it) has been conceved or produced before. So if this bill does get passed, do this mean anyone and everyone that thinks to have a creative or artistic thought, can/may/will be governed and regulated to control of others and should anyone disagree, all creative aspects can be terminated? Just a thought to all creative people out there, not just Canadians and Americans.

    Canadian Inuit

  132. Tarah Brown-Dean says:

    This is completely WRONG and TWISTED about the ACTUAL bill Canada is looking at. Maybe the author should have actually read the bill so as to not spread lies around.
    PVP recording: ALLOWED
    ripping your own purchased CD’s to your iPod: ALLOWED

    Under suspicion of illegal downloads/uploads? Yes, your ISP addy will be cut

    ALL IT MEANS IS PERPETRATORS WILL ACTUALLY BE CHARGED AND PUNISHED!!!!!!!!!

    • The Walrus says:

      Only allowed if the content isn’t digitally locked or, in the case of PVR recordings, broadcast flagged. How long do you thing it will be after passing that every digital file is locked and every TV broadcast is flagged. Again, I posted my sources, there are others who agree with me that I haven’t linked to but are easy to find and are much more influential than this little blog.

      Also…

      “Under suspicion of illegal downloads/uploads? Yes, your ISP addy will be cut”

      Really, you’re okay with, “under suspicion?” I’m not. Maybe you missed the stories of the MPAA and RIAA not just accusing but suing a whole pile of people who absolutely should not have ever been “under suspicion.” Here, I’ll give you the link… http://brainz.org/14-most-ridiculous-lawsuits-filed-riaa-and-mpaa/

      Allowing a complaint made by an industry that is notorious for punitive, puerile and openly dishonest practices to be cause for a person’s internet access to severed, without due process, is evil. And anyone writing this passionately in its defense must have had a hand in it. Or just hates people.

      But good on you for having the stones to be wrong and not hide behind the anonymous post option 😀

      • Cingeo says:

        Having the internet is not a right. Thus it is in the interest of the Internet provider to ensure no illegal activities are taking place on the line it owns and rents out to you the user.

  133. Eileen says:

    I don’t want to see it passed there because once it is passed in another country it will be fuel to pass it in another. And we are still not out of the woods with SOPA and PIPA, they tend to wait til we are not looking and try to sneak things through.

  134. Amber says:

    Not Canadian, and not gonna ask you if you live in an igloo. Gonna share with as many as I can and hope it helps even a tiny bit…

  135. The Walrus says:

    So I’ve noticed that the only people coming out in support of the bill are posting anonymously…

    Really?

    I applaud your bravery. Truly.

    😀

  136. Aidy P says:

    Well, I think lawmakers will tread carefully, since the huge anti-SOPA sentiments recently. Wishing you well in getting the notice out about this!

  137. Anonymous says:

    I’m confused… I read a bit of the bill (located here: http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Docid=4580265 ), and as an example, it says that you CAN record media for future use, as long as it is obtained legally. From what I read, this bill seems at least partially legit. The reason I was anti-SOPA and PIPA was because there were credible sources saying it was bad (i.e. every major site out there). What evidence or proof do you have that this bill is what you say it is? Cause so far, it’s not lining up…

    • The Walrus says:

      Um, I linked to my primary sources in the article and a cursory Google search for C-11 will produce dozens of other articles, all from sites far more reputable than mine, who all draw the same conclusions.

    • Anonymous says:

      That’s a link to bill c-32, not c-11.

      • The Walrus says:

        C-32 is the old form of the bill. It’s much more convenient for people to howl about how we’re blowing the issue out of proportion when they’re using the older, slightly less evil version as a source.

  138. Anonymous says:

    I am from Ontario. And I will tell you right now, it isn’t just our leaders pushing this SOPA bullshit. It’s the garbage UN calling for it for suhk sakes. I like Harper, and could care less what poeple think about that..lol I just hope he does much better then his predicesor Mullroney did uuugh. What am I sayin. No one can fuhk up like mullroney did.

    • Ben says:

      Harper is a death sentence for Canada.

    • Anonymous says:

      Mulroney made gst visible, but it pre-existed before that, he may have messed some stuff up, but at the very least he made sure people knew what they were paying and why.

      If you didn’t know that stores were charging extra during that time taking advantage of the “invisible federal tax” and charging exorbitant amounts of money profiting off of “tax”.

      With his implementation of GST, if the price became greater than it should have, you’d atleast be aware of the fact that it was the store or big box retailer etc. that was marking up the value on items, and not the government gouging people.

      Needless to say, people got all pissed off about a tax they believe was “Created” when it already pre-existed. He simply made it visible and made income taxes easier, because it was clear cut.

      Sadly there’s still a lot of ignorant people who believe Mulroney created the GST from thin air.

  139. Wayne Borean says:

    Um, You missed a couple of things, but good work. Bill C11 is definitely a nasty.

    I’ve been writing about Copyright since before Bill C-32 was tabled, all through the ACTA negotiations. If you want some background on Canadian Copyright issues, you can get it on my website.

    I’m not saying I got everything, because I know I didn’t, but I covered things that the others didn’t, like the Climate Change impact of DRM. Also the entire thing is driven by the ABA/APA/RIAA/CRIA/MPAA/MPA/BPI/IFPI wish to operate in a society where they have no competition. Their eventual end game is to wipe out artists sites, so that the only way to sell music/videos/books is though them. This is a concept called monopoly. Sellers love it, because it means that they can charge what they like, when they like. By preventing artists from going independent they can lock in the monopoly.

    Did you know about the Canadian Recording Industry Association aka Music Canada astroturf group on Facebook?

    A good general site for information on copyright is Techdirt.

    Remember that this is a long term battle, and that you are actually on the side of the artists. The corporations want to block the artists from being able deal with their fans other than through them. You are the only ones who can stop them.

    Wayne

    PS: If you don’t have Akismet installed on your blog you should consider it. It’ll cut down on the junk replies.

    • The Walrus says:

      Thanks Wayne, I was saying to a friend yesterday that what really outrages me is that all of this litigation and attempts to purchase legislation is a reaction to the market speaking. We’re told over and over again that the free market is king and that it will always determine what something is worth. Apparently the entertainment industry never received that memo though, as they’re reaction to having the market spank them a wee bit is to run and cry to mommy. Or, you know, in this case, elected representatives who seem to have forgotten upon whom they depend for job security.

      I do have askimet installed, and it does a great job of filtering out spam, but I force myself not to censor anyone, whether they disagree with me or not; whether their dominant language is English or Trollish. That’s the whole point of an open internet; everyone gets a voice, even extraordinarily naive and embarrassing assholes.

      😀

      • Wayne Borean says:

        Thanks Wayne, I was saying to a friend yesterday that what really outrages me is that all of this litigation and attempts to purchase legislation is a reaction to the market speaking. We’re told over and over again that the free market is king and that it will always determine what something is worth. Apparently the entertainment industry never received that memo though, as they’re reaction to having the market spank them a wee bit is to run and cry to mommy. Or, you know, in this case, elected representatives who seem to have forgotten upon whom they depend for job security.

        I write computer articles for cash. There are things I could tell you about Microsoft that would scare you silly. This is why I will not run Windows on my working computer. I refuse to support them because they tried, and are still trying the same tricks that the RIAA/MPAA are trying. That’s why I could recognize them so quickly, I’d been writing about them already.

        I do have askimet installed, and it does a great job of filtering out spam, but I force myself not to censor anyone, whether they disagree with me or not; whether their dominant language is English or Trollish. That’s the whole point of an open internet; everyone gets a voice, even extraordinarily naive and embarrassing assholes.

        I used to do that. Then I realized that someone whose entire message consisted only of swear words wasn’t contributing to the discussion. Someone who wrote something that was on topic with swear words I can live with.

        My main reason for shutting them down was that they chased away people who otherwise would have joined in on the discussion, while adding nothing themselves. That’s a personal choice though.

        Like my putting a warning on the first draft of a novel I’m serializing on my other website that if you are easily offended, that you shouldn’t read it. My main character is leaving an impressive trail of bodies behind him. This is also a culture that treats nudity casually, crucifies people, and keeps slaves. Oh, and my hero has three wives, aged 16, 17, and 17. But since he’s 16 himself it isn’t an age mismatch. I think I’ve got something in there to offend just about everyone, but most teenage boys would be drooling at the prospect…

        Wayne

  140. […] is about to pass their own version of SOPA A Copyright Quickie: Canada Is About To Pass Sopa’s Evil Little Brother. Politely. Dear They And this what Europe did ACTA poised to censor the Internet worldwide | Digg Worldnews What You […]

  141. Evil will creep.While we sleep.

  142. Anonymous says:

    Crapshacks. This Texan hopes Bill C-11. gets trashed. Good luck!

  143. Mia says:

    Why don’t you guys just email him, rather then just complaining about on here? it’ll do a lot more good.

  144. Greg says:

    Folks — if you’re opposed to this Bill, ‘Like’ and sign this Facebook petition. Canadian governments tend to respond to these sorts of things.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Stop-Bill-C-11-Fight-Harpers-proposed-Copyright-Act-Defend-Your-Data/238789716190627

  145. Anonymous says:

    BULLLLL SHIIIITTTTTT

  146. Karl says:

    Here’s another Facebook group against C-11:
    http://www.facebook.com/groups/119561151420709/
    Consumers Against Bill C-11

  147. […] debacle in the US, Canada has it’s OWN issues with upcoming legislation. Specifically the C-11 bill. This is the letter I just wrote to the many ministers and MP’s supporting this […]

  148. David O'Broder says:

    We left Ireland in 1963 because of government oppression (NI) and immigrated to America. I was three years old then and couldn’t say much to the situation but grew up with parents who insisted that I read and learn the Constitution of the US. I fought against SOPA, did whatever I could do, I will gladly chip in and fight C-11. Whatever it takes!

  149. Angela says:

    As an American (yes, yes, boo hiss), I commend you on your early action and keeping people informed. I have many Canadian friends and support your desire to keep these shitty bills from passing.

    As a Texan, I find your igloo statement hilarious as I have never even seen a ranch and I don’t own a horse. Stereotypes are fun, eh? 😉

  150. Dumb says:

    “Like your PVR? You can’t keep it under C-11.”

    Yes, so, Shaw, Rogers, Telus, Bell, and Cocego to name a few would love to see their business crippled. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight.

    • The Walrus says:

      Under C-11 content creators (networks)) would be able to demand that their content be digitally locked and not PVR-able. You’d get to keep your machine but it would become more and more useless.

  151. zeb dalgalaxy says:

    why are you writing this as if you’re talking to an american? …”We’re not going to get Google or Wikipedia to go dark up here.” and why use so many stupid stereotypes? (also as if youre talking to an american)

    • The Walrus says:

      Because most of my regular readers (meager an audience as that might be) are American

      • Anonymous says:

        then why are you writing in such a derogatory in demeaning manner towards Americans? I’m not American but it’s hard to take you seriously because of that and your stupid reference towards “going home and fucking the prom queen”. In fact after reading this I’m not sure who you’re hoping is going to read this and not find it rather silly and dramatic.

        • The Walrus says:

          The whole point of this was to get people to sign the petition and stop the bill. It would appear that several thousand have in the last day so apparently “silly and dramatic,” sometimes works.

          *To be fair, had I known so many people were going to find the article, I might have omitted the Connery quote, but I thought it was going to get maybe a couple hundred hits. I was groaning about that with one of my friends this morning. But only cowards and the extraordinarily vain self-censor when the audience grows.

          • Anonymous says:

            I love this often trotted line “We canadians are polite and have stronger beer” crap, except that a) insulting Americans is our favourite pastime, is perfectly acceptable and expecting no insults in return b) how offended we canadians seem to get when an American retorts. In another life, I called it a superiority complex….. i’m guessing you’re already insulted by my four lines so i’ll leave it at that.

            on to business, If you start being truthful to yourself, you might stand a chance of being correct on this issue. Unfortunately you’ve made the mistake of exaggeration and misinformation along with your party political bias that can be easily rectified with a bit of research. I doubt very much that the Liberal party would have done much different. They’re all in bed with each other and the CRTC.

  152. yep says:

    Unless an officer come to my house with a loaded gun i’m going to do whatever the fuck i want on the internet. EAT SHIT STEVE!

  153. For anyone reading this that keeps saying who cares and wonders why people are getting so up in arms over this go the this link read it come back and then make an intelligent comment about what you wrote. If you still believe after reading it that there is nothing to worry about tell us why you think so defend your point of view otherwise you just look like a complete douche.

    Just to let you know the link below is the actual bill on the Parliament of Canada website detailing the entire bill.

    http://www.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&DocId=5144516

  154. Angie says:

    Where is this petition? While I think that you did a fine job writing a decent commentary, I have to apologise for all the assholes that dont have something better to do than deter attention from the most important facts here: our government is trying to find more and more ways to infringe on our human rights and find more ways to control where our money goes. Its amazing that they think people will not be spending the next few weeks pirating everything they can in preparation for the passing of the bill…
    But I digress, where we can go to sign the petition should be mentioned or highlighted somewhere… Please? 🙂

  155. Jenner says:

    What does apposing C-11 matter if Canada has already signed ACTA? We are already screwed…

  156. REG" the choosen one" says:

    its all for nothing anyways,the solar storm in dec 2012 is gonna wipe out all electronic gadgets and then we as people can get back to reality

  157. Thomas says:

    Who fucking cares. Worry about something that matters….

  158. Cunt says:

    Can’t do anything about it so shut the fuck up and eat you cereal

  159. Anonymous says:

    Who the fuck cares

  160. Anonymous says:

    i like bacon.

  161. Katie says:

    If you look up Bill C – 11 on the government of Canada website, it’s a bill to prevent the spread of human pathogens. Nothing to do with the internet?

  162. barb.raw says:

    Thank you for posting and writing this – regardless of the shitty comments posted above, we’re reading and the point you make is excellent. I wish trolls would hold our print media and government so accountable 🙂 Keep writing!

  163. Michael Faubert says:

    Yowzers, and i thought this was just an American problem.

  164. Strange comment threads here. While I oppose the bill, I don’t agree with your stance on Harper. In any case your ‘creative writing’ is a bit uninspired.

  165. Saint Anger says:

    They can kiss my ass. The thing about ripping cds to mp3 player…i would love to see them try and stop that. I already added this shit up…going with the $150.000 fine for each copyright on my computer i would owe them over $4.5 BILLION. I cant even afford a fucking coffee right now (FUCKING THANKS TO THE GOVERNMENT – “EI”) So please, waste your time and money trying to get that $4.5 billion from me!

    • jakk says:

      my god folks! Read the bill!! NO WHERE does it stop you from ripping cd’s to an mp3 player!

    • Sumooqip says:

      Here’s something fun:
      you are allowed to take music from a CD and put it on any digital device you have, same with record to a PVR etc. etc. etc.

      Also, max fine? $5, 000/violation. Down from $20, 000 (This is Canada’s laws. the US is where the 150K figure is coming from) This is a low enough figure most copyright holders will not even both going after it; As the lawsuit itself would cost more

  166. Mark says:

    Less trying to come off as a witty writer and more to the point please.

    (Because most people care less about you or your writing and more about what the hell is going on with Bill C11.)

    Bonus: If you’re going to upload a couple of documents of your “creative writing” (quotations in this case can be interpreted however you’d like them to be), you might actually get people interested in it if you publish it on a nicer looking/less-generic website. But probably not 😉

  167. […] This article is in reference to the post made here […]

  168. Anonymous says:

    PISS CUNT FUCK

    • The Walrus says:

      That is…succinct 😀

    • Sort of Anonymous says:

      Please sir, less about the order in which you add your abusive concept of sexual intercourse to some poor girl’s life, and more on topic.

      Although I have to say if you have to urinate into her vaginal cavity before you commence intercourse, its possible she is not willingly wet enough. You might try lubrication first instead of urination.

      Please, “cunt”s need loving, not abuse.

  169. Donny says:

    C-11 is nothing like SOPA. If you’re going to write on a subject, you should really be at least somewhat knowledgable on that subject and it’s quite clear that you aren’t.

    • The Walrus says:

      Donny, the more severe limitations are all ones that have been proposed in the past week. See:

      http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6257/125/

      Specifically:

      “For example, the industry wants language to similar to that found in SOPA on blocking access to websites, demanding new provisions that would “permit a court to make an order blocking a pirate site such as The Pirate Bay to protect the Canadian marketplace from foreign pirate sites.” Section 102 of SOPA also envisioned blocking of websites:

      A service provider shall take technically feasible and reasonable measures designed to prevent access by its subscribers located within the United States to the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) that is subject to the order, including measures designed to prevent the domain name of the foreign infringing site (or portion thereof) from resolving to that domain name’s Internet Protocol address. Such actions shall be taken as expeditiously as possible, but in any case within 5 days after being served with a copy of the order, or within such time as the court may order.

      The music industry also wants Internet providers to be required to adopt a termination policy for subscribers that are alleged to be repeat infringers. According to the industry document:

      To incent service providers to cooperate in stemming piracy by requiring them to adopt and reasonably implement a policy to prevent the use of their services by repeat infringers and by conditioning the availability of service provider exceptions on this being done.”

      Things change sir, and before impugning someone’s knowledge on a subject, you might want to try doing a bit of research first.

      • Mark says:

        And in the future you might want to save embarassing yourself by leaving holes of important information in your post that will be called out by readers who don’t even need to have knowledge of the subject to spot shitty writing. Unless you intended this to be a joy blog for yourself, in which case please disregard my comment as it was aimed for those who actually come to the internet to get informed.

      • Donny says:

        “Groups are pushing for” is not the same as “about to pass”. The bill hasn’t even finished second reading yet.

        Groups push for all kinds of things, this is not the same as them actually being included in the bill and it’s definitely not the same as them being about to pass.

        Leave the writing to Michael Geist, he understands how our political system works and you clearly don’t.

        • Anonymous says:

          The point of the matter is, is that if they’re pushing for it, they WANT it to pass. Jumping on the “Oh no you don’t bill C-11” band wagon now insures that it won’t get close to passing in any right. Less complaining, more action.

  170. Anonymous says:

    Did you read the bill? It specifically allows reproduction for private purposes, with very loose limitations. It specifically allows backup copies to be kept as long as the media was obtained legally and the copy is not given away, with very loose limitations.

    eg. You may rip a CD you buy and put it on your iPod, put it on another CD, copy it to a hard drive, etc., as long as you do not sell it or give a copy away.

    eg. You may record a performance (TV Show, Movie, etc.) in any way you please, as long as you receive the show legally. You may even keep the recording as long a time as is “convenient” to watch it at another time.

    This bill is only for preventing serious copyright infringement and it should absolutely pass.

  171. Mike says:

    Sorry, but you’re wrong – Bill C-11 is nothing like SOPA. Rather, it is pretty much a replica of the DMCA, which is the *other* evil U.S. copyright law that they’ve already had for several years. Here in Canada we not only do everything politely, we do it exactly the same as the U.S., just a few years behind.

    • The Walrus says:

      Mike and Anonymous, see above reply to Donny re http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/6257/125/

      Things have changed drastically in last week with C-11 and it’s the unpublished changes that cause the most concern.

      • Mike says:

        Well… shit. Thank-you for pointing this out, Walrus!

        • The Walrus says:

          That sir, is how I roll. Never write something that can’t be backed up…that way you don’t wind up fellating bad guys in the slammer. 😀

          • Mark says:

            I’m pretty sure the bad taste of this website can’t be backed up, lol. That’s how I roll, sir!

            • The Walrus says:

              Like a troll? Exactly which part of C-11 do you like? Look, this is a 400 word, written at midnight, vent about an issue that concerns me. It’s not in any sense authoritative and was written as reaction to a string of much more authoritative articles sharing the same conclusion. What it has done is get a few thousand extra people to sign a petition to stop a bill that (unless you have a differing opinion) absolutely should not be passed.

              Are you really so impotent and attention starved that you feel the need to flail around wildly at anyone who has an opinion?

              Gotta love the internet.

              • VicountBastion says:

                They sound less like trolls and more like plants for Harper trying to do damage control. “My personal rights might be at risk, so I am going to complain about creative writing and attack the author with petty ad hominem that distracts from the issue!” Eh-huh. Occam’s Razor says “PLANT”.

              • Mark says:

                “Are you really so impotent (!) and attention starved that you feel the need to flail around wildly at anyone who has an opinion?”

                Well now who is having trouble backing themselves up! Calling me impotent without any proof isn’t much of an argument – especially when I’ve obviously been “competent” (likely the word term you were searching for) enough to irritate you into responding.

                Most of your comment (and the one below) is irrelevant to my point, which is that your writing lacks a solid expression of exactly what Bill-C11 is. I see that you have linked to other sources now which is better, but it still isn’t as good as would be a summary more substantial then just listing off a few examples you felt worked into your “style.”

                I see you have justified your post which is fine. I originally saw it for what it was: a post meant to draw awareness for those already familiar with the bill to some extent – and perhaps those who are curious enough to find out what it’s all about. That’s my point though – the post would benefit simply from a better explanation of the bill for those not familiar with it. You don’t have to agree with me, but calling me a “troll” and getting all pissy calling me “attention starved” and “impotent” (sounds very American of you!) and totally is off the mark and – surprise surprise, Viscount – it’s an ad hominem!

                By the way Viscount, my argument wasn’t meant to have anything to do with whether Bill-C11 should or shouldn’t pass, so it wasn’t really an ad hominem. An ad hominem is what occurs when someone attempts to win an argument over a specific topic by attacking their competition rather than arguing directly against their competition’s point. Under that definition you, too, qualify as someone using an ad hominem attack.

                I’m sorry if it hurts your feelings, but there are those of us have perspectives that aren’t governed by the latest changes to bills, etc., and it doesn’t make our opinions any less valid. I have not disputed your opinions and if anything I agree with them. But if you don’t step outside yourself and culture and the academic mechanical dream machine once and a while, you won’t realize how absurdly foolish you can look.

              • The Walrus says:

                Mark 1)impotency doesn’t just refer to sexual impotency, sir. In this case I meant it as a complete inability to matter. I’d say that’s particularly apt.

                2) Unfortunately, I now have to add a new character trait to your list of failings, intellectual dishonesty. To whit:

                “so it wasn’t really an ad hominem. An ad hominem is what occurs when someone attempts to win an argument over a specific topic by attacking their competition rather than arguing directly against their competition’s point.”

                That’s a fair assessment of an ad hominem attack, sir. Well done! Now let me show you an example of what one looks like:

                “Yeah! Let’s all share poor journalism so those inclined will quickly lose interest and move on – when there’s much better journalism out there!”

                Well that’s pretty much a textbook case, isn’t it? No attack against an actual argument? Check. Mindless attack against your opponent(? You give yourself too much credit sir, you’re not my opponent, this bill is) Check! Wow, I think we’ve got our bases covered.

                Now, let’s see who wrote this, and hid it on a different page where no one would see him behaving like a douche.

                Oh, it’s you. So, you don’t make ad hominem attacks, except when you do. And you’re not a troll, except when you are.

                I don’t know if you’ve noticed, but everyone else I’ve replied to has gotten a civil response. The only reason you haven’t is because you are the only person who felt the need to make things personal.

                You are a troll, sir, and shall be labeled and treated as such.

                Good day.

  172. Leanne Moffat says:

    Reblogged this on One Odd Duck and commented:
    Please read.

  173. tashtoo says:

    Reblogged this on thebleedingpen and commented:
    Read this…share this….stop this… Calling upon the New World Creative

  174. tashtoo says:

    I don’t care who you insulted Fellow citizen under Emperor Harper…we need to shout this loud!

  175. Anonymous says:

    Actually you insulted everyone south of the 49th parallel… the Mason/Dixon line separates the southern states form teh northern states…. just saying

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s