Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter


Forgot your password?

Canada to Hold Public Hearings on Digital Copyright 16

Christopher Whitt writes: "It looks like the Canadian government is going to hold public hearings on the Copyright Act reform in progress. I responded to the Call for comments on the Consultation Paper On Digital Copyright Issues mentioned in a 2001-09-06 slashdot article. I received the notice below in my email this morning. I won't be able to make the hearings myself, so I hope some other Canadian readers can get out and make the fair use message heard!" Read on for the details from the notice.
February 19, 2002

As part of the ongoing consultative process to reform the Copyright Act, the departments of Industry and Canadian Heritage are planning cross-country consultations on the issues outlined in the Consultation Paper on Digital Issues published in June 2001. These full day consultation sessions will be held in the following cities on the following dates:

  • Halifax on March 8, 2002;
  • Vancouver on March 15, 2002;
  • Montreal on March 21, 2002;
  • Toronto on March 26, 2002;
  • Ottawa on April 11, 2002.
Our intention is to present a forum for soliciting your views and concerns on the issues identified in the discussion paper and therefore your continued participation is important to the success of this round of copyright reform.

We will be sending you a formal invitation shortly which provides further details, along with relevant documentation.

We thank you very much for the time and interest which you are committing to our initiative and we look forward to meeting with you at these consultations."

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Canada to Hold Public Hearings on Digital Copyright

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward
    Too bad all those cities are a prohibitivly long drive away. It's a good three days to Toronto by car, and I can't afford to fly. It's also a good 2 days to Vancouver. Stupid government, skipping three provinces :(
  • Does it really matter if a few industry bodies lobby a goverment to legally protect an undesirable product? It's not like we're forced in any way to purchase a DVD player or games console. So long as the law doesn't force the destruction of older equipment (book-burning style) then who cares if some CD you don't need won't play on your equipment.
    • I can't decide if you're trolling or just naieve, so I'll respond.

      The point isn't whether or not you're forced to purchase something. The point is why am I not allowed to use products I purchase, as I see fit?

      When I buy something, I have a right to be able to use it as I see fit. Nobody should be able to tell me how I can or can't use my computer. That's what the DMCA does - it tells me that I'm not allowed to write certain programs.

      Imagine if you decided that you didn't like the current crop of word processors, and you decided to write your own - and to add import support for RTF. Then you get thrown in jail because some company decided that you're "infringing on their intellectual property."

      THAT is the point. I should have the right to do anything with MY equipment that I wish.
      • Let's say you buy version 1 of a product. It has feature X. Then comes version 2 of that product and it does not have feature X. You have no right to tell the company that makes the product that they must include feature X. You only have the right to buy it or not.

        Surely it's up to the company if they want to produce something people will buy or not. I know that you're seeing a difference between a product that just can't do X v's one that can do X if you make an illegal modification, but assume there's no difference when you make your purchasing decision.

        Remember, there are all ready plenty of laws restricting you from modifying other stuff, particularly anything that plugs into the mains, so this isn't a new invasion of your whatever. As for creating things from scratch, you're not allowed to make fireworks without a licence either, even if they can be made with stuff you can purchase in a supermarket.

        This isn't life-or-death technology. You're not adapting a dialisis machine for your unique condition. These are stupid movies and computer-generated pop stars.

        • by schon ( 31600 )
          OK, I'll say it again: The point is why am I not allowed to use products I purchase, as I see fit?

          You have no right to tell the company that makes the product that they must include feature X. You only have the right to buy it or not.

          And this is relevant to my argument HOW?

          I never said I have the right to force a company to include a feature. I said I SHOULD HAVE THE RIGHT TO DO WITH MY PROPERTY WHATEVER I CHOOSE.

          there are all ready plenty of laws restricting you from modifying other stuff, particularly anything that plugs into the mains

          Laws such as that are for the safety of others - so that you don't kill your neighbors. They exist to guarantee that I don't kill someone accidentally.

          They have no bearing on the topic at hand.

          So I guess you really WERE trolling.
  • by douglask ( 205604 ) on Wednesday February 20, 2002 @02:36PM (#3039202) Homepage

    Under existing copyright law in Canada, we have the right to make a backup of copyright materiel we have legally obtained. Citizens of the United States used to have this right as well until the DCMA stripped them of this right.

    We need to send the message loud and strong to our MP's (Members of Parliment) that existing rights need to be protected. If we cannot backup our copyright material then we will be forced to pay the royalties a second time if our original is damaged in some way.

    I am all for prosecution of those who circumvent copy protection measures in order to sell or give copies of copyright material to a third party. This directly affects the copyright holder's earnings.

    What needs to be done is ensure that the everyday user is still allowed to make reasonable copies of content for personal use. Why? Simply because media can and does become damaged. How many people have had a tape player eat a cassette tape? I know I have. That's why I make a single copy of each cassette I purchase and only play the copy. My master is safe and out of harms way. Under current Canadian copyright law this is 100% legal. I've had CD's get damaged as well. I was glad I had the content on a Cassette as is protected under existing law.

    I do not want to see this right taken from myself and my fellow Canadians.

  • Fair use... (Score:2, Insightful)

    Fair use: I have a young child. I have a DVD player. If my child attempts to load or unload or even think about a DVD, it is rendered unplayable within mere seconds. If I can make a backup copy of the DVD, and use the backup, well then, problem solved. I should be able to do this legally.

"You must have an IQ of at least half a million." -- Popeye