points us to an article about the state of Canada's proposed copyright reform bill, C-32
, which has significant problems
in that it basically tries to export failed DMCA provisions to Canada, driven largely by US diplomatic pressure
. However, with C-32, it seems that no one's particularly happy with the entire bill. The article quotes the Canadian Recording Industry Association (CRIA) boss, Graham Henderson, complaining about the provisions that limit liability for non-commercial copying (while applauding most of the rest of the bill):
"Once this bill is passed, you could go online and steal every movie that's ever made, every book, and every song, put them on your hard drive, admit liability, and write a $5,000 check. That would be the full extent of it -- and it would be the first rights holder who would get all the money. Nobody else would get a cent. It's close to saying that for people who want to steal stuff, there's a compulsory license of $5,000."
It's difficult to think of a sentence that shows anyone more out of touch than that. Would anyone really want to pay $5,000 (not an insignificant sum by any means) for purely a non-commercial compulsory license? Whenever various compulsory licenses have been discussed, they've usually been in the range of $5/month or so. To pretend that anyone will just pay up $5,000 for non-commercial copying is just silly.