The Buymusic.ca Blog

Justice Minister Rob Nicholson has stated that Bill C-30 will not proceed in Parliament in response to the concerns brought up by the Privacy Commissioner of Canada and members of the public.

This bill would have enabled police to access internet traffic without a warrant and would have required the installation and maintenance of extra equipment by internet providers, who would have passed the associated expenditures down to the consumer.

Canadians would not only have lost rights in regards to privacy but could have also been subjected to security breaches via the new aforementioned online spying equipment had this bill gone through.

A new bill will be unveiled shortly in Parliament so additional information will be posted to this blog a.s.a.p.

So, Parliament is now in session and several issues are back on the table.

Quite a few of the more controversial bills have passed through, some changed slightly like the Copyright Modernization Act. But the primary issue I’m having now is related to privacy in the internet.

We have progressed, the Office Of The Privacy Commissioner of Canada offering an online form for complaints. And the debate persists in the media, as it’s been since Bill C-12 was introduced in September 2011 by the Minister of Industry and Ministry of State (Agriculture).

The issue of course is the wording of the proposed amendments to Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act in Bill C-12 and other documents, which could cause problems later on in its interpretation and enforcement.

At the moment the member of parliament are concentrating on the budget, which will be tabled next week. But quite a few citizens are also wondering if they will be required to pay for technology to spy on every day citizens through their internet providers. And others wonder what will qualify as “probable cause” to start an investigation of an individual.

For example, will the past downloading of files from services like Megaupload result in an investigation in regards to piracy because of the accusations made against the service by the United States ? Will the viewing of a fundamentalist video on Youtube result in an investigation related to terrorism ?

Some people assume that they will be determined innocent with little to no effort if they were ever exposed to these issues. But what will be the due processes and how inconvenient will they be to the accused and the system ?

I am concerned about the mass prosecution of people and financial toll this will take on our internet providers and legal system. And having avoided the use of peer to peer transfer programs because of malware and spyware, I do not appreciate being exposed to the possibility of security issues through the implementation of a system that could have security issues of its own.

“Haste makes waste”. We need to tread slowly and thoughtfully through the process.

Bill C-11, the Copyright Modernization Act, will be up for its third reading vote by June 18th in the House Of Commons.

Bill C-11, a.k.a the Copyright Modernization Act, is now being reviewed in committee.

This committee will review the proposed amendments, clause by clause, and will make adjustments in response to requests by interested parties.

Unfortunately numerous groups have requested major amendments that could complicate matters for consumers and Canadian internet users.

Members of the music industry are not only asking for a levy on mp3 players and serious restrictions to the fair dealing/user generated content clauses. But they are also asking for SOPA and PIPA like measures that include the blocking of foreign web sites and the removal of online content without court oversight.

Other industry groups have also called for the identification of internet users, again without legal oversight, and the introduction of RIAA style prosecutions to Canada with amendments that are so vague as to possibly result in the prosecution of social networking sites like Facebook and search engines like Google.

The Supreme Court of Canada has had previous rulings on fair dealing, the prosecution of internet providers in regards to copyright and the proposed levies on mp3 players. But it appears some members of the music industry don’t care about these rulings.

They also don’t care about the many concerns voiced by the public and associations representing students and librarians, as made apparent by their rhetoric.

They’ve even gone as far as to attempt to pressure the Canadian Bar Association to retract their official opposition to the questionable provisions in the Copyright Modernization Act.

In essence they’re willing to allow the public to be subjected to vague and possibly unconstitutional regulations, that will be questioned in law for years, when exemptions for fair dealing and private copying would in no way hinder their industry.

Under the premise of the protection of their industry, they will subject consumers to more copy protection schemes like that of the Sony Rootkit, that have failed and endangered their interests in the past.

There are currently two petitions that may be of interest to those who oppose these amendments :

• The Open Media Internet Lockdown Petition
• The Liberal Party Digital Lock Petition

Please sign these petitions as soon as possible and contact your local MP in regards to your concerns.

Thank You.

In response to the numerous groups calling for an amendment allowing the circumvention of copy protection for non-infringement purposes, the Liberal Party of Canada have proposed an amendment that would alter the following definition in our Copyright Act :

41. The following definitions apply in this section and in sections 41.1 to 41.21. “circumvent” means,

(a) in respect of a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (a) of the definition “technological protection measure”, to descramble a scrambled work or decrypt an encrypted work or to otherwise avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair the technological protection measure, for any infringing purpose, unless it is done with the authority of the copyright owner; and

(b) in respect of a technological protection measure within the meaning of paragraph (b) of the definition “technological protection measure”, to avoid, bypass, remove, deactivate or impair the technological protection measure for any infringing purpose.

I believe the official opposition, the New Democrat Party, will support this amendment. And a petition has been made available though the Liberal Party Of Canada for Canadians to sign here.

But your local Member of Parliament‘s office should still be available to receive letters and emails in regards to the digital locks provisions in Bill C-11 and Lawful Access until Parliament resumes in late January.

Over 80 thousand Canadians signed the OpenMedia.ca petition against Lawful Access, including yours truly.

Please consider signing this petition. Thank you.

Bill C-11 is scheduled to be debated in the House Of Commons today, apparently under time restraints according to the Projected Order Of Business.

Hopefully the questions on the technological protection measures will be blunt and to the point :

• In what manner are artists and copyright owners harmed by private copying from copy protected works ? And why does this harm not exist in private copying from works that are not copy protected ?
• In what manner are film makers harmed by the private viewing of legally purchased films that failed to be distributed in Canada ? And does the sale of this material to Canadians by legitimate retailers and distributors not imply consent to their private use by Canadians ?

The Private Copying section of our Copyright Act distinguished private use from piracy and in my opinion the technical protection measures provisions in Bill C-11 are a step back.

The Conservative Government has tabled Bill C-11, the “Copyright Modernization Act“. And as predicted this legislation mirrors the previously introduced Bill C-32.

Consequently the issues with Bill C-32 remain, including the digital lock provisions that have the potential to disable the consumer’s ability to copy material for private use.

Overall the bill is a step in the right direction. But these digital lock provisions should be amended to allow the circumvention of copy protection for private copying, as defined by our copyright act.

Copy protection failed in the music industry. They’ve experimented with consumers, failed miserably, and it’s time to move on.

Shortened hearings are expected but the NDP have said they want to table amendments enabling private copying of copy protected works.

Please contact your local Member Of Parliament to voice your comments and concerns in regards to Bill C-11.

Thank you.

It appears the Conservative Government has omited lawfull access from their latest crime reform bill, named the “Safe Streets and Communities Act“, which was tabled today.

Lawful access may be introduced later. But it appears that the 70,000+ signature Openmedia.ca petition may have caused this delay and may result in a more indepth review of this proposal.

Quebec residents will know if they will be subjected to a provincially collected Harmonized Sales Tax by the end of the month.

The federal government has already set aside $2.2 billion dollars to compensate the provincial government of Quebec and is still in negotiations with Quebec in regards to what will and will not be subject to this tax.

Books and baby cribs, for example, are not subject to the provincial sales tax in the province of Quebec. And consumers are concerned that because GST is charged on those items that these products may be subject to the combined 13% Harmonized Sales Tax.