Canadians Argue Against DMCA-like Law in Mini-Documentary

The Obama administration slammed Canada last week, adding our northern neighbor to a list of what the office of the U.S. Trade Representative says are nations which fail badly at copyright protection. U.S. media rights holders, including video game publishers’ lobbying group ESA, lauded the USTR’s addition of Canada to its Priority Watch List.

Some Canadians reacted with anger, claiming the action was driven by America’s corporate IP lobby and arguing that Canada should not bow to such consumer-unfriendly pressure.

Via boingboing, we’ve gotten a look at C-61, a mini-documentary which addresses the Canadian government’s so far unsuccessful attempt to pass DMCA-style copyright law.

boingboing’s Cory Doctorow, who provided some narration to the film, comments:

A group of Canadian copyfighters produced this mini-documentary, "C-61," about the proposed new Canadian copyright law, which the US government is pressuring Canada to pass (that’s why the USA added Canada to a nonsensical list of pirate nations).


Previous attempts to pass this bill have been a disgrace — famously, former Industry Minister Jim Prentice refused to discuss the bill with Canadian record labels, artists, tech firms, or telcos, but did meet with American and multinational entertainment and software giants to allow them to give their input. In the bill’s earlier incarnation as C-60, its sponsor, Sam Bulte, was caught taking campaign contributions from the same US and multinational entertainment companies…

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone


  1. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    You do realize that piracy steals from the people who make things, right?  Every illegally downloaded movie, or pirated song or game, is one less copy the person who made it gets royalties for.  It’s not just the "greedy corporations."  How do you think the people who make the IP get paid?


    Freedom of speech means the freedom to say ANYTHING, so long as it is the truth. This does not exclude anything that might hurt someone’s feelings.

  2. 0
    JDKJ says:

    If that’s your hope, then you should also hope that the capital which finances the ability of creative sorts to make things and which also finances the marketing and distribution of the things they make also gets shifted to them. But you should be aware: creative sorts usually suck at money management.

  3. 0
    vellocet says:

    The reason for all this copyright legislation and debate becomes pretty simple if you look at who’s behind it.  The MBAs who run large corporations are not creative, they cannot create anything that will compel other people to buy.  They only make money based on OTHER people’s creations and their control of it.

    They want to keep as much control over the "intellectual property" as possible because it is their property.  They don’t have the intellect to create more.

    I hope that there’s a revolution coming where power is shifted to people who actually MAKE things and contribute to society, instead of those who manage and sponge off other people’s acheivements.

  4. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    And the right of open corruption that everyone ignores.
    We don’t need a separation of church and state…we need a separation of money and government!!

    As long as money freely flows in government the people will be lead by nobility instead of their peers.


    I am a criminal because I purchase media,I am a criminal because I use media, I am a criminal because I chose to own media..We shall remain criminals until Corporate stay’s outside our bedrooms..

  5. 0
    JDKJ says:

    I’m throwing this out there because I suspect that it’s a little-known fact:

    In the United States, the making of campaign contributions enjoys not one but, rather, two types of constitutional protections: the right of free speech and the right of free association.

  6. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Before I can agree or disagree with your redistribution plan, I’d need to know the value of the current contributions from each camp. If the creators are contributing around 10% of total investment and the capitalists are contributing around 90% of total investment, then the current profit-sharing plan you describe sounds entirely fair to me. 

  7. 0
    vellocet says:

     I believe that would be part of that revolution as well. As great a system money is for us to exchange goods and service, money itself doesn’t really contribute anything to society.  It’s also gotten to the point where the money system is about finding and making loopholes so that it can self propogate… money has become more important than the products and services that it’s supposed to be exchanged for.  And the people managing the money are making all of it.  Not to mention screwing things up for the rest of us (i.e. the current sh!t pile the world finds itself in right now).

    Anyhow, that’s besides the point.  The point is that right now, the money pretty much gets split 10% creators 90% business/marketing… I’m hoping that more money will be shifted to the people creating.

  8. 0
    Conster says:

    So since they failed to bribe Canada into doing what they want them to, they’re having the US government blackmail them now? That’s cold, man.

  9. 0
    Shahab says:

    Resist Canada, resit the disgusting corruption. As an American how hates the DMCA you have my best wishes in keeping this filth from your own legal codes. 

  10. 0
    mirumu says:

    Other countries can be quite wary of campaign contributions from commercial interests. I know if something like that news came out here in New Zealand it would be considered a conflict of interest and there would be calls for the Minister to resign. Personally I prefer it that way, but I have to admit that the idea of US-style lobbyists scares the hell out of me.

  11. 0
    kiroh says:

    In Canada it is illegal for a company to provide any campaign contributions.  Contributions from individuals are limited to $5000.

    Edit: On second check, I see that corporations are allowed to contribute a maximum of $1000 collectively to a party, regardless of the number of candidates, electoral district associations, and nomination contestants.

    So you’re right, she wasn’t exactly caught, but there was some controversy surrounding it.

  12. 0
    JDKJ says:

    "Sam Bulte, was caught taking campaign contributions from the same US and multinational entertainment companies . . . ."

    Did they steal this from the Jack Thompson Playbook? If the mere fact that a legislator has received a campaign contribution from an entity who would benefit from their favorable vote on a piece of legislation was enough to disqualify the legislator from voting, then 95% of the Free World’s legislators wouldn’t have to bother showing up for work every day.

    And what’s up with the "was caught" part? Was Bulte trying to evade capture? I don’t know squat about Canadian campaign law, but I bet what they’re talking about as Bulte being "caught" ain’t nothing more than someone looking up his required campaign finance disclosures and discovering that he received contributions from certain entertainment companies. And so what? Did the Mounties thereafter lead him away in handcuffs, charge with breach of public faith and accepting bribes? I’ll bet not.

Leave a Reply