IFPI Complains That Canada's New Copyright Bill Not Draconian Enough

from the make-it-worse! dept

Perhaps not a surprise, but Michael Geist points us to the news that the IFPI is complaining that Canada’s new copyright bill doesn’t go far enough in protecting its obsolete business model:

“The publishing of this bill is only the beginning of a process, and some of its provisions must be amended in order to bring Canada in line with its international treaty obligations as well as evolving international norms. As it is, it simply does not go far enough to protect creators and producers in the digital environment.”

This is despite the fact that Canada already has numerous draconian copyright provisions, extremely limited exceptions and a blank media tax that already assumes most Canadians are criminals. But, this is the recording industry we’re talking about. They won’t be satisfied until absolutely everything it doesn’t control is locked down.

Filed Under: ,
Companies: ifpi

Rate this comment as insightful
Rate this comment as funny
You have rated this comment as insightful
You have rated this comment as funny
Flag this comment as abusive/trolling/spam
You have flagged this comment
The first word has already been claimed
The last word has already been claimed
Insightful Lightbulb icon Funny Laughing icon Abusive/trolling/spam Flag icon Insightful badge Lightbulb icon Funny badge Laughing icon Comments icon

Comments on “IFPI Complains That Canada's New Copyright Bill Not Draconian Enough”

Subscribe: RSS Leave a comment
19 Comments
fogbugzd (profile) says:

P2P still isn't a capital crime

IFPI will continue to demand more and more protection until saying “P2P” is a capital offense.

Of course, none of these laws are going to make people buy more music CD’s. The lack of laws does allow IFPI to continue to justify its existence and give industry execs a scapegoat for running their businesses into the ground.

out_of_the_blue says:

"obsolete business model"

To the contrary, what IFPI is setting up is tried and true: a government granted and enforced monopoly. Works for Major League Baseball, National Football League, doctors, lawyers, and probably for the Rutabaga Association if we but knew details. So don’t expect them to fail anytime soon.

It’s *you* who haven’t got your “models” right. We no longer live in a country where civil rights are even preserved; those are all being monetized in standard statist ways: prisons, police, “security” agencies, copyright holders with granted “rights” that the government enforces, all rely on unlimited force being turned against individuals.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: "obsolete business model"

“Works for Major League Baseball, National Football League, doctors, lawyers, and probably for the Rutabaga Association if we but knew details.”

Of course, monopolies work for the monopolist. I would love a monopoly on the sale of hamburgers. Do you know who it doesn’t work for though? The consumer.

Anonymous Coward says:

Re: Re: "obsolete business model"

“I would love a monopoly on the sale of hamburgers.”

You’ve probably innocently mentioned a wish that set me off, so I’m going to violate my own rule of not commenting more than once a day on a topic. — And to an Anonymous Coward.

Your longing for a monopoly is reprehensible. It’s stating you wish government *force* to be used against your fellow humans for your *unearned* benefit. I could go on, but doubt that you’re serious. — However, others *are* serious and actually *do* more than wish, and if successful, overcome all civilized inclinations so that conscience doesn’t nag them, and turn blind eyes to the suffering they inflict. Money and power are corrupting, and doesn’t take much of either to be *absolutely* corrupted.

As said, I’m a Populist. I only want reasonable limits placed on what I *know* by all human history are corrupting to anyone’s soul, and consequently, a direct hazard to me and all decent people who just want to *trade* labor with equals, not be exploited for the gain of a few who crave only POWER. History is mostly a record of tyranny. We’ve been living in *the* most unusual period of human history ever, due to freedom won from tyrants, but new ones (and many of the old ones) are now turning otherwise wonderful technology into computerized control of slaves.

Dark Helmet (profile) says:

Okay...

I’m finding it hard to conjure up much anger today (given where I’m from, you can probably guess why!), but let me give it a shot:

“The publishing of this bill is only the beginning of a process, and some of its provisions must be amended”

Interesting. I’ve never actually heard an evil motherfucker come right out and SAY they were engaged in a feature creep. Awesome. Because that’s all this can be. You draft and pass legislation based on a negotiated medium between many sides and many other sides….and then one side says, “this is only the start, we’re going to change much of this to the way we want it”? WTF? What would they say if those representing consumer rights said, “Yeah, this bill passed, but no worries cuz we’re going to strike most of this bullshit in a couple of years”?

“to bring Canada in line with its international treaty obligations”

BWHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAH…..ass hats….

“as well as evolving international norms.”

Sigh, sanity, finally! That’s what international law SHOULD be, a representation and enforcement of what is normal throughout the world. Which means, of course, that copyright laws should be reviewed and mostly gutted, because the international norm is for people with the means to do so to pirate music, movies, and games.

“As it is, it simply does not go far enough to protect creators and producers in the digital environment.”

Back to the feature creep, because otherwise they never would have signed on to this supposedly inadequate law.

Okay, enough anger, I’ve got a parade to prepare for tomorrow. Wait…what’s that next story coming up? an H1N1 government and industry collusion on a level far beyond Rumsfeld and his FDA bullshit? Uh oh….

Steve R. (profile) says:

Re: Okay...

Dark Helmet beat me to “international norms”. As an add on, what about the consumers rights? Seems that the discussion of international treaty obligations and international norms is based on the faulty premise that only the content creators have any so-called “rights”. The reality is that the content creators have been lobbying the government(s) to continue to strip the consumer of their rights. So – until the consumer is stripped of all rights; existing law is out of “norm” and unjust? Give me a break.

Anonymous Coward says:

what intenet spee ddid you have 14 years ago in canada

me
675Kbytes down and 400Kbytes up with rogers

its of course unlimited but now today what do we have ?

500Kbytes and 80Kbytes upspeed

canada is doing far less and when you consider were a meager nation of 33 million
ifpi is all so upset at us when they have 500 million and th eusa has 350 million

take all there “pirates” combines and it prolly more then canada total population times 5

Add Your Comment

Your email address will not be published.

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here

Comment Options:

Make this the or (get credits or sign in to see balance) what's this?

What's this?

Techdirt community members with Techdirt Credits can spotlight a comment as either the "First Word" or "Last Word" on a particular comment thread. Credits can be purchased at the Techdirt Insider Shop »

Follow Techdirt

Techdirt Daily Newsletter

Techdirt Deals
Techdirt Insider Discord
The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...
Loading...