[Dan]

Ok, so the government in Canada has made an awful copyright bill. I wrote the following letter to Jim Prentice, the Minister of Industry. To the Canadian here, please e-mail it to him as well, with any modifications you wish to make. His address is minister.industry@ic.gc.ca; maybe we can get them to listen.

To The Honourable Jim Prentice,

As you are no doubt aware the bill you have put forward appears to
satisfy several problems that have been raised over the past months,
but in fact does very little to solve these problems (See for example
Michael Geist's brief analysis:
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/content/view/3025/125/ ).

I have voted for the Conservative party every election since I have
been of age and I have even performed volunteer work with your party.
But I must say that this bill is an ill-advised action for your
party to take; passage of this bill would make me seriously reconsider
my vote in the next election.

It is recognized that fair copyright protection is necessary to properly
recompense artists, producers, and distributors of artistic works and to
maintain cultural growth, but this law is by no means fair; it unfairly
criminalizes and penalizes consumers of artistic works.

First, (non-moral) copyright for artistic works extending for 50 years,
as per Section 23, is far greater in length than what is necessary to
properly recompense an artist for their works and fuel cultural growth.
At the same time it unnecessarily prevents consumers from the legal
enjoyment of works which may no longer be commercially available by
consumers. The term of (non-moral) artistic copyrights should be lowered
to a more reasonable length and a clause should be added allowing for the
free and unlimited reproduction and distribution of works which are no
longer commercially available for private use.

Second, Sub-Sections 29.21(1)(c), 29.22(1)(c), and 29.23(1)(b) preventing the
circumvention of copyright-protection technologies are grossly unfair, and
makes the other private reproductions allowed within these sections
irrelevant as companies may increase the use of these technologies to
criminalize the the fair private use of purchased artistic works. These
sub-sections should be completely removed and the use of copyright-
protection technologies which infringe upon a private individual's fair use
of a purchased work should be disallowed.

Third, Sub-Sections 29.21(1)(d) and 29.22(1)(d) unfairly prevent consumers from
using purchased artistic works for private and fair use. There are many
valid reasons why a consumer may reproduce multiple copies of a purchased
work on a single device. These sub-sections should be completely removed
and the right for a consumer to create multiple copies of a work for fair
private use should be upheld.

Fourth, Sub-Sections 29.21(2), 29.22(2), and 29.23(2) allow for the creation
of repressive EULAs and other contracts for works which may prevent the fair
private use of purchased works and thereby nullifies those private
reproduction rights provided for in these sections. Many consumers are
unable to (whether for a lack of time or ability) fully read and understand
the legalistic jargon used in EULAs and similar contracts and the hiring
of lawyers by private individuals to read and interpret EULAs and other
similar contracts is simply infeasible. These sections should be completely
removed to prevent the use of EULAs to prevent the fair private use of
purchased works and the creation of EULAs and other contracts which unfairly
restrict the fair private use of individual consumers should be disallowed.

Fifth, Section 29.23(5) prevents the storage of fair recordings of fixed
signals and broadcasts through digital means. It may be necessary for an
individual to store a digital recording on a network for fair use purposes.
This sub-section should be eliminated and the right of consumers to store
recordings for fair private use by any reasonable method should be upheld.

Sixth, setting statutory damages for individuals at $500 per a work whose
copyright is infringed, as per Section 38.1(1) of the original act, is
exceedingly high. These excessively punitive damages go well beyond what
would be considered a recompense for artistic infringement. Statutory
damages for an individual's private use and distribution should not exceed
more than triple the original cost (as some deterrent effect to infringement
may be necessary) of purchasing the copyrighted material. In the case of
copyrighted works, such as broadcasts or fixed signals, that are
distributed free of charge to individuals and are not commercially available
to individuals, the damages should not exceed a reasonable amount. The
amendment should be changed to amend the original Copyright Act so that
statutory damages are not excessively punitive.

Seventh, maximum damages of $20,000 for an individual's copyright
infringement, as per Section 38.1(1) of the original act, are excessively
punitive. This limit should be lowered to a more reasonably just amount.

Eighth, Section 41 of the amendment cripples any possibility of fair use
measures of copyrighted works, as it allows copyright protection technology
to unfairly prevent fair and private use of copyrighted works. This section
should have a clause added allowing for the circumvention of technological
measures for fair and private use of copyrighted works. As well, the
use of technological measures to unfairly restrict fair and private use
of purchased works should be disallowed.

Ninth, Section 42(3.1) is exceedingly punitive. $1,000,000,000 is an unjust
penalty for simply bypassing copyright protection. Damages should be lowered
to a more reasonable amount, and the penalty for a summary conviction
should be further lowered. In addition, a clause should be added which makes
those who bypass copyright protection in pursuit of the fair and private use
of purchased works exempt from these penalties.

I would ask you to consider these changes to the amendment to create
copyright protections for Canadians which are fair to both copyright
holders and consumers.

I would also ask that, until you make these changes, you do not pass, or
further the passage of, this bill. Copyright law is an important issue to
many Canadians and unfair or overly harsh measures to prevent copyright
infringement will anger many consumers and citizens. This will reflect
negatively on the government. As it stands, the current bill is
unnecessarily harsh and prevents individual consumers from freely
using their purchased works in a fair and private manner. A bill such as
this will criminalize and lead to the persecution of many individuals
who are honest law-abiding, tax-paying citizens. This will reflect poorly
on any party which may work to pass this bill.

Thank you for reading this,

Dan