When it comes to internet connection speeds, ISPs often advertise some blazing fast speeds - sometimes at a fairly cheap rate. Unfortunately, a lot of these deals come with a very big string attached to it - bandwidth caps. In response, we here at ZeroPaid have decided to offer some helpful tables that should show what your cap says about your internet connection.

While major entertainment corporations are working hard at censoring the internet in the United States through the PROTECT IP Act, it corporate sponsored censorship has already become a reality in the UK thanks to what some have referred to as a landmark court case.

“In my judgment it follows that BT has actual knowledge of other persons using its service to infringe copyright: it knows that the users and operators of Newbin2 infringe copyright on a large scale, and in particular infringe the copyrights of the Studios in large numbers of their films and television programmes," said Justice Arnold. In opposing the order, BT had argued that Newzbin2 also links to lawful content, but the court said it was far outweighed by pirated material and that "BT’s best shot was to point to a reference to the 1891 Lancashire census".

New Zealand is one of the countries that have the oppressive three strikes law. It hasn't taken effect yet, but AFACT, a local copyright lobby, is demanding that ISPs pay for all of the enforcement costs.

"AFACT notes the New Zealand Government's approach of a rights holder fee per notice, which is out of step with the more common and preferred practice in other jurisdictions where right holders and ISPs bear their own respective costs," AFACT said in a statement. "For example, we note that in last week's voluntary agreement in the United States between the movie and music industry and the country's largest ISPs that each party agreed to bear their own costs." AFACT has recently been trying to get Australian ISPs to act on their users who are allegedly infringing copyright, recently sending a letter to providers saying that they should act, or expect action. Although it lost its appeal in the Federal Court where it tried to show that iiNet had authorised its users to infringe copyright, lawyers have said that the judgement provides a legal avenue for the federation to have providers aid rights holders in policing copyright infringement.

TWC and the U.S. Copyright Group came into an agreement a few months ago to limit requests to 28 per month in exchange for limiting the cost per IP address requested to $32.50. But since then, TWC has been served with more subpoenas, which TWC says was a breach of its agreement. Now, TWC wants to limit its exposure and make the plaintiffs pay the full cost in advance.

The company says that it has the capacity to handle 28 subpoenas from the US Copyright Group per month. Instead, TWC was hit with a request for 809 names within 30 days. In addition, the company has received two other subpoenas, both from the same law firm, asking for another 398 and 224 IP address lookups. Each lookup costs TWC $45.

In a way, it's surprising that Canada is still talking about Usage Based Billing. Yet, here we are today with the CRTC (Canada's regulator for industries like this) holding hearings on ISPs pushing to make sure Usage Based Billing is permitted in the marketplace.

CRTC Chair Konrad von Finckenstein asked why - if Bell was facing network congestion - sister company Bell Aliant has not implemented UBB. Bell argued that Bell Aliant "supported" UBB, but acknowledged that competitive forces and marketplace conditions in Atlantic Canada were such that UBB is currently not needed. Of course, von Finckenstein didn't need to look at Bell Aliant as his example - Bell itself employs different caps in Ontario and Quebec given the different competition from Videotron and Rogers. Their approach isn't a function of congestion, but rather competition. In fact, when Bell was asked whether it planned to keep data caps for its retail customers, it responded that it did, subject to "competitive dynamics." The effects of competition was further confirmed when Telus appeared as it noted that it doesn't use UBB, it isn't a pressing issue, and that competition with Shaw has led to far more generous plans than those found in other parts of the country. Discussion on the lack of a link between congestion and UBB continued as Commissioners Molnar and Denton asked why Bell was promoting a plan that involves aggregate usage rather than peak usage. Molnar noted that aggregate usage is not linked to congestion and that it appeared to simply create incentives to reduce Internet use more generally. Bell agreed, leaving Molnar to respond that this was a problem since it reduced Internet use with no benefit to addressing congestion. Denton continued on the same theme, asking why the CRTC would want to try to reduce Internet use other than in an effort to address congestion. Add Bell's acknowledgement that its pricing is not a function of actual costs but rather the market and the conclusion is that all elements of UBB - use of caps, pricing, and size of caps - are a function of the regional marketplace dynamics, not congestion concerns. Moreover, the Commissioners seemed to understand why this issue is so troubling, with Molnar emphasizing the dangers of a policy that discourages Internet use and Denton linking UBB to cloud computing and the fears that caps would harm that emerging industry.

The smaller ISPs have argued they would be driven out of business if they have to use the same pricing model employed by the large players, who charge extra if the retail customers exceed monthly usage limits. CRTC chairman Konrad von Finckenstein told the hearing Monday that the commission is only looking at the wholesale prices that independent Internet providers pay for network use and not retail rates that are charged to their consumers. Bell withdrew its usage-based billing tariff earlier this year and is proposing wholesale pricing for ISPs that reflects a flat-rate access fee on speed and charges 29 cents per gigabyte for any extra gigabytes needed to accommodate overall usage in a month. Bell also said that its recently launched Internet-Protocol television service doesn’t contribute to its network congestion because it operates over a separate network.

There's been rumblings for a while for the US to have it's own 3 strike law, but many thought that it wouldn't happen given the implications. Much to the dismay of many, it appears that ISPs and the entertainment industry in the US have agreed to a 6 strike regime.

content theft costs the U.S. economy more than 373,000 jobs, $16 billion in lost earnings, and $3 billion in lost federal, state and local government tax revenue.

“While blocking and filtering measures deny users access to specific content on the Internet, States have also taken measures to cut off access to the Internet entirely,” it reads. “The Special Rapporteur considers cutting off users from Internet access, regardless of the justification provided, including on the grounds of violating intellectual property rights law, to be disproportionate and thus a violation of article 19, paragraph 3, of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.”

Previously, Anonymous has leaked details of the Orange Country Democrats. Now, it seems, they have decided to post source code and blacklist data of a Dutch ISP after the ISP decided to act on government requests to censor Internet traffic.

To all friendly and enemy vessels, Today we want to introduce you to Nimbuzz, a Dutch company providing a free mobile messaging application carrying the same name. This company is not situated in just the Netherlands as they have offices in Argentina, India, Indonesia and all over Europe. So why does this company interest us? Well, simply put, they are capable and self-admittingly willing to co-operate with governments to help censor the public's use of the very service they offer. Now it should be noted that some of our blackhat friends who are extensively involved in the AntiSec movement have had access to this company's networks for some time. Their access to this network is best described as complete access to everything in their network including all of their source code on Nimbuzz's svn server. The gross incompetence of the security model put in place for this server astounded even us. We have access to many many networks and because of this we have to prioritize what is of interest or use to us (or you, the public that we love so much). However, we had some friends bring it to our attention that this Nimbuzz company is actually enacting policies that directly go against everything Antisec stands for. Thus, here we are. To prove that we aren't making this up here is a document in their CMS displaying the procedure of how, if requested, they can switch off VOIP services BY GOVERNMENT REQUEST. A quote from the document:

"In some countries governments and/or operators have reasons for not allowing VoIP over (mobile) data networks. They may use technical means to active block and / or throttle the Nimbuzz traffic over their network. This results in total, partial or severe Nimbuzz service degradation towards the end-user. When these cases are known, Nimbuzz will open dialogue with the government/operator. Aim is to resolve the service degradation and restore quality of service. In return for allowing Nimbuzz service to run properly, we can offer to switch of VoIP calls on this operator network."

The document goes further to state that Nimbuzz currently blocks all VOIP traffic in Syria and Egypt and even includes specific data such as IP ranges given by providers. This is entirely unacceptable and let's make this perfectly clear: We DO NOT tolerate any kind of censorship of communication. We DO NOT tolerate companies working in collusion with governments to stop the free flow of information We WILL expose these companies to the public to show how their information can be manipulated and censored by the governments and corporations that work with them Thus, we release the document mentioned above in full as well as some other information from their CMS. As a bonus we have also acquired some code from the /trunk directory on their svn. In total we downloaded over 120 Gigabyte of source code but will not release it..yet. Take heed, governments that seek to oppose the people who elect them and the corporations who the people work for - We will not stand idly by while you take away our electronic and physical freedom. "People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."

What could possibly be the reason why the US has such (loading article, please wait...)

AT&T takes a different tack: The firm says it supports competition, but notes that, "There is no 'one-size fits all' regulatory regime" that will work worldwide. AT&T cites two main differences between the UK and U.S. markets: First, more U.S. homes have the option of buying broadband service from cable companies. Second, the U.S. is more spread out -- the technical term is that those "loops" are longer. But again, the facts in the UK suggest otherwise. Many homes in Britain's largest city -- London -- have cable access, but cable prices have fallen alongside that of DSL service. Meanwhile, the size of the U.S. may be a red herring. Most of the region between Boston and Washington is as densely populated as most of Europe and the UK. So is the California coast between San Francisco and San Diego. And so is the region of the Midwest centered on Chicago. Those areas are home to about a quarter of all Americans. In other words, we live in a big country, but a lot of it is relatively empty space. The argument that the U.S. is too spread out is nonsense, according to Herman Wagter, one of the Netherlands' most prominent evangelists for next-generation broadband. He thinks there's something else going on in Verizon's and AT&T's opposition to competition at home: They're afraid of it.

LulzSec has certainly had an effect on many around the world. Love them or hate them, it's next to impossible to deny that they have caught the attention of many. That includes Australian ISP Telstra. According to reports surfacing, they planned on rolling out their web censorship plan, but are now hesitant on implementing their web censorship plan fearing reprisals from hacking groups such as LulzSec.

It is understood Telstra was last night still grappling with the decision as to whether to commit to the voluntary filter because of fears of reprisals from the internet vigilantes behind a spate of recent cyber attacks. It is understood the unstructured collective of hackers that identifies itself as Lulz Security, which has an agenda to wreak havoc on corporate and government cyber assets, claiming this is to expose security flaws, is one of Telstra main concerns. LulzSec has claimed responsibility for attacks on the US Central Intelligence Agency, the US PBS and most recently it released a swath of Arizona law-enforcement documents.

The other main concern is a group that identifies itself as Anonymous, another unstructured hacker collective that claims to be opposed to any form of internet censorship, and has carried out attacks on Australian government websites because of Canberra's support for an internet filter

Patrick Gray, host of information security podcast Risky Business said the carriers' fears were well-founded.

It'll be May 2nd when Canadians head to the polls, and the positions on copyright can be rather muddied at times. That makes the CCA posting on political parties so interesting. Canadian political parties were asked a series of questions related to the arts and some of this ground covers copyright.

Bad trade deals are bad for Canadians. A Green Government will renegotiate NAFTA and FTAA, as well as other agreements currently under negotiation (e.g. Canadian-EU Trade Agreement (CETA)). Any Chapter 11-type Investor-State provision that allow foreign companies to sue our government and its agencies (e.g. CRTC) will be removed.

If Bill C-32 is presented before Parliament again in its current form, the Bloc will try to better balance the bill by proposing amendments during the committee's study.

Recent studies have shown that Canada’s out-of-date Copyright act translates into major economic loss (up to 965 million dollars lost last year due to piracy, according to an Ipsos/ Oxford economics study) for Canadian creators all across the country; the Liberal Party will thus start working on presenting a modernised copyright act as soon as we form government. Bill C-32, the latest Conservative attempt to modernise copyright, was unbalanced and unfair; a Liberal government will work with all stakeholders to ensure creators rights and their sources of revenues are protected under the Copyright act. Digital technology offers many new opportunities, but enjoying content without compensating its creators shouldn’t be among them. A new Liberal government will introduce technology neutral copyright legislation that balances the needs of creators and consumers and reflects the principle that our artists and musicians should be paid for their work. We will stand with Canadian creators as they navigate both the opportunities and challenges of the new digital society. During the debate on copyright legislation in the last Parliament, it was the Liberal Party that developed a practical solution to providing musicians with compensation through a new private copying compensation fund rather than a levy. A Liberal government will look to develop similarly innovative solutions to ensure that the Copyright Act protects creators’ existing and future rights and revenue streams in a digital age. Likewise, the Liberal party believes that any exception under fair dealings must be clearly defined with a clear and strict test for fair use so that creators are fairly compensated for their work.

Bottom line, it sounds like the Liberals are planning on also changing copyright laws so that they are more strict. While their track record (what we mentioned in our Liberal platform review) suggests that they want to increase exceptions, that seems to be the only highlight of their position as they sound like they are merely going along with what foreign corporations want copyright laws to be from the sounds of things. The NDP simply had this to say:

If elected, Jack Layton and the New Democrat team are committed to introducing legislation to modernize Canada’s copyright regime within 12 months of taking office.

The parties were then asked, "What types of amendments do you intend to put forward? " The Bloc's response:

Copyright law does not take into account the impact of new technologies, including the advent of the internet, and must be changed as quickly as possible. All work deserves proper compensation, so it is essential that artists and creators receive their dues, while also ensuring that consumers benefit from access to creative products. Illegal downloading is detrimental to artists, who receive no fair compensation for their works, while internet service providers are able to benefit financially from their labour. Introduced in June 2010 by the Conservatives, Bill C-32 fails to make ISPs responsible and is satisfied with attacking the consumers who pay ISPs for internet access.

This appears to be repeating what they said earlier in their platform about making ISPs liable for copyright infringement. It also seems to reaffirm that they are merely going to toe the viewpoint of foreign multi-national corporations. The Green parties response was rather surprising:

The Green Party believes that Bill C-32 needs more work and that the educational exceptions in particular disrespect creators and threatens their livelihoods and businesses. The Green Party of Canada is committed to working with the CCA and all the relevant stakeholders to modernize our outdated copyright system.

I don't understand exactly how the educational exceptions in Bill C-32 disrespected creators. It locked down art whenever there was a DRM present, thus restricting what educators could do with material for educational purposes. I personally find this response puzzling. The NDP was more open to fair dealing:

We would begin by addressing issues including private copying, fair dealing, and the regime governing statutory damages, among others.

The next question was this: "Which elements of Bill C-32 will your party keep, and which elements of the bill will your party remove or change in a new bill to modernize the Copyright Act?" The Bloc responded:

The Bloc Québécois will ensure that the new bill is fair to both creators and consumers. This balance must be achieved, most notably through: an upgraded system for private copying, applying to mp3 players and other digital music players; reasonable royalties to artists for redistribution of their works; the abolition of the education exemption and fair recognition of the resale rights of visual artists.

They went on to re-iterate that they want to make ISPs liable for copyright infringement. The Green Party had an interesting response:

The Green Party of Canada strongly supports artists' rights to guaranteed fair compensation through fair patent and copyright laws. At the same time, we consider the digital lock provision in Bill C-32 to be excessively restrictive in that it will not allow students and journalists to properly create and conduct research. We will work with the CCA and other stakeholders to sharpen the definition of "educational uses" to find the right balance to give researchers this ability in a manner consistent with a thriving information commons, fair dealing principles, and moral rights.

This seems to be similar to the Liberals position on the DRM exceptions that they are far too strict and, essentially, choke off certain kinds of innovation legally speaking. The NDP had a very specific response:

In reviewing Bill C-32, New Democrats would closely examine a number of key issues contained in the proposed legislation, including (but not limited to) ISP liability, Technological Protection Measures (TPMs, or so-called “digital locks”), statutory damages, private copying and reproduction for private purposes, broadcast mechanical licensing and fair dealing. In order to arrive at an equilibrium between the interests of rights-holders and those of consumers, New Democrats would likely begin developing new copyright laws, beginning by consulting widely with stakeholder groups with the aim of creating a legislation that is – unlike C-32 – truly technology-neutral, balanced and flexible enough to ensure its adaptability to new platforms and technologies in the years to come. We would also determine definitively Canada’s obligations as a signatory to various international treaties governing copyright and intellectual property.

While they are glossing over a lot of subjects, they are, at least, recognizing that these issues do matter to them. If you would like to see the full responses and questions in these and other topics, you can check out the CCA website. So, if ACTRA is hoping to find a political party that explicitly says they'll support a three strikes law, well, it's clear that this policy isn't exactly on the minds of the political parties judging by these responses. The closest mention of three strikes is the mention of CETA. That was the Green party and they explicitly said that such an agreement was a bad idea. What is noticeable in these responses is how some parties (namely the Liberals and the Bloc) seem to be more warm to the idea of a more DMCA-style approach to copyright. The Bloc went further by saying that ISPs should be liable for copyright infringement. While I personally fully disagree with this policy because ISPs are used for way more than accessing music, they seem to have been very consistent on this position. The NDP appear to at least recognize the complexities of copyright the most with mentioning not just TPMs and fair dealing, but statutory damages and ISP liability as well. Overall, these are very interesting comments given that sometimes, the party platforms were vague at times. Some of these responses really did clarify the party positions on these issues. I think that the NDP further clarified their positions the most while the Bloc merely reaffirmed their positions. The other parties were somewhere in between reaffirming their positions and clarifying the points they made in their platform. Does these positions change your vote? Which party do you think had the position that reflects your stance on copyright the most? Are all of the issues that are of concern to you being addressed so far in this election? Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]>

It'll be May 2nd when Canadians head to the polls, and the positions on copyright can be rather muddied at times. That makes the CCA posting on political parties so interesting. Canadian political parties were asked a series of questions related to the arts and some of this ground covers copyright.

Recently, ZeroPaid's own Jared Moya noted that ACTRA was asking Canadians to vote for candidates who would support a three strikes law. The question being raised here is which party best suits your position if you are Canadian. We've already reviewed the platforms of the Conservative, Bloc, Liberal, Green and Pirate party platforms. Well, if reading the platforms weren't enough for you, the Canadian Conference of the Arts (CCA) sent a series of questions to the Bloc, Conservative, Green, Liberal and NDP parties with regards to the arts in Canada. There responses might prove quite interesting for some voters to say the least. As it seems to be par for the course, the Conservative party did not answer any questions, so that leaves the Liberal, NDP, Bloc and Green parties. We've read through the comments and have put together some notes. The parties were asked, "How do you intend to protect culture in international trade negotiations?" The Green party had an interesting response, saying:

Bad trade deals are bad for Canadians. A Green Government will renegotiate NAFTA and FTAA, as well as other agreements currently under negotiation (e.g. Canadian-EU Trade Agreement (CETA)). Any Chapter 11-type Investor-State provision that allow foreign companies to sue our government and its agencies (e.g. CRTC) will be removed.

Copyright was then asked. The question specifically was "Precisely when does your party intend to present amendments to modernize the Copyright Act?" The Bloc responded with the following:

If Bill C-32 is presented before Parliament again in its current form, the Bloc will try to better balance the bill by proposing amendments during the committee's study.

While this response specifically seems rather vague, judging by our platform review, chances are, they mean that they are going to restrict copyright more to the liking of foreign multinational companies (re: DMCA-style copyright law) The Liberals response was particularly eye-opening:

Recent studies have shown that Canada’s out-of-date Copyright act translates into major economic loss (up to 965 million dollars lost last year due to piracy, according to an Ipsos/ Oxford economics study) for Canadian creators all across the country; the Liberal Party will thus start working on presenting a modernised copyright act as soon as we form government. Bill C-32, the latest Conservative attempt to modernise copyright, was unbalanced and unfair; a Liberal government will work with all stakeholders to ensure creators rights and their sources of revenues are protected under the Copyright act. Digital technology offers many new opportunities, but enjoying content without compensating its creators shouldn’t be among them. A new Liberal government will introduce technology neutral copyright legislation that balances the needs of creators and consumers and reflects the principle that our artists and musicians should be paid for their work. We will stand with Canadian creators as they navigate both the opportunities and challenges of the new digital society. During the debate on copyright legislation in the last Parliament, it was the Liberal Party that developed a practical solution to providing musicians with compensation through a new private copying compensation fund rather than a levy. A Liberal government will look to develop similarly innovative solutions to ensure that the Copyright Act protects creators’ existing and future rights and revenue streams in a digital age. Likewise, the Liberal party believes that any exception under fair dealings must be clearly defined with a clear and strict test for fair use so that creators are fairly compensated for their work.

Bottom line, it sounds like the Liberals are planning on also changing copyright laws so that they are more strict. While their track record (what we mentioned in our Liberal platform review) suggests that they want to increase exceptions, that seems to be the only highlight of their position as they sound like they are merely going along with what foreign corporations want copyright laws to be from the sounds of things. The NDP simply had this to say:

If elected, Jack Layton and the New Democrat team are committed to introducing legislation to modernize Canada’s copyright regime within 12 months of taking office.

The parties were then asked, "What types of amendments do you intend to put forward? " The Bloc's response:

Copyright law does not take into account the impact of new technologies, including the advent of the internet, and must be changed as quickly as possible. All work deserves proper compensation, so it is essential that artists and creators receive their dues, while also ensuring that consumers benefit from access to creative products. Illegal downloading is detrimental to artists, who receive no fair compensation for their works, while internet service providers are able to benefit financially from their labour. Introduced in June 2010 by the Conservatives, Bill C-32 fails to make ISPs responsible and is satisfied with attacking the consumers who pay ISPs for internet access.

This appears to be repeating what they said earlier in their platform about making ISPs liable for copyright infringement. It also seems to reaffirm that they are merely going to toe the viewpoint of foreign multi-national corporations. The Green parties response was rather surprising:

The Green Party believes that Bill C-32 needs more work and that the educational exceptions in particular disrespect creators and threatens their livelihoods and businesses. The Green Party of Canada is committed to working with the CCA and all the relevant stakeholders to modernize our outdated copyright system.

I don't understand exactly how the educational exceptions in Bill C-32 disrespected creators. It locked down art whenever there was a DRM present, thus restricting what educators could do with material for educational purposes. I personally find this response puzzling. The NDP was more open to fair dealing:

We would begin by addressing issues including private copying, fair dealing, and the regime governing statutory damages, among others.

The next question was this: "Which elements of Bill C-32 will your party keep, and which elements of the bill will your party remove or change in a new bill to modernize the Copyright Act?" The Bloc responded:

The Bloc Québécois will ensure that the new bill is fair to both creators and consumers. This balance must be achieved, most notably through: an upgraded system for private copying, applying to mp3 players and other digital music players; reasonable royalties to artists for redistribution of their works; the abolition of the education exemption and fair recognition of the resale rights of visual artists.

They went on to re-iterate that they want to make ISPs liable for copyright infringement. The Green Party had an interesting response:

The Green Party of Canada strongly supports artists' rights to guaranteed fair compensation through fair patent and copyright laws. At the same time, we consider the digital lock provision in Bill C-32 to be excessively restrictive in that it will not allow students and journalists to properly create and conduct research. We will work with the CCA and other stakeholders to sharpen the definition of "educational uses" to find the right balance to give researchers this ability in a manner consistent with a thriving information commons, fair dealing principles, and moral rights.

This seems to be similar to the Liberals position on the DRM exceptions that they are far too strict and, essentially, choke off certain kinds of innovation legally speaking. The NDP had a very specific response:

In reviewing Bill C-32, New Democrats would closely examine a number of key issues contained in the proposed legislation, including (but not limited to) ISP liability, Technological Protection Measures (TPMs, or so-called “digital locks”), statutory damages, private copying and reproduction for private purposes, broadcast mechanical licensing and fair dealing. In order to arrive at an equilibrium between the interests of rights-holders and those of consumers, New Democrats would likely begin developing new copyright laws, beginning by consulting widely with stakeholder groups with the aim of creating a legislation that is – unlike C-32 – truly technology-neutral, balanced and flexible enough to ensure its adaptability to new platforms and technologies in the years to come. We would also determine definitively Canada’s obligations as a signatory to various international treaties governing copyright and intellectual property.

While they are glossing over a lot of subjects, they are, at least, recognizing that these issues do matter to them. If you would like to see the full responses and questions in these and other topics, you can check out the CCA website. So, if ACTRA is hoping to find a political party that explicitly says they'll support a three strikes law, well, it's clear that this policy isn't exactly on the minds of the political parties judging by these responses. The closest mention of three strikes is the mention of CETA. That was the Green party and they explicitly said that such an agreement was a bad idea. What is noticeable in these responses is how some parties (namely the Liberals and the Bloc) seem to be more warm to the idea of a more DMCA-style approach to copyright. The Bloc went further by saying that ISPs should be liable for copyright infringement. While I personally fully disagree with this policy because ISPs are used for way more than accessing music, they seem to have been very consistent on this position. The NDP appear to at least recognize the complexities of copyright the most with mentioning not just TPMs and fair dealing, but statutory damages and ISP liability as well. Overall, these are very interesting comments given that sometimes, the party platforms were vague at times. Some of these responses really did clarify the party positions on these issues. I think that the NDP further clarified their positions the most while the Bloc merely reaffirmed their positions. The other parties were somewhere in between reaffirming their positions and clarifying the points they made in their platform. Does these positions change your vote? Which party do you think had the position that reflects your stance on copyright the most? Are all of the issues that are of concern to you being addressed so far in this election? Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com.]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93234/canadian-political-parties-clarify-their-positions-on-copyright/feed/ 1 http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93121/canada%e2%80%99s-election-a-review-of-the-bloc-platform-on-digital-issues/ http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93121/canada%e2%80%99s-election-a-review-of-the-bloc-platform-on-digital-issues/#comments Sun, 17 Apr 2011 22:17:19 +0000 Drew Wilson http://www.zeropaid.com/?p=93121

We continue our platform election review on the Bloc Québécois party platform. As always, we are focusing specifically on copyright and privacy related issues.

We've already reviewed the Conservative and Liberal party platforms, so now we turn our attention to Bloc Québécois. At this point, I'd like to remind everyone that we are only looking at digital issues, so we are setting asside the issue of separation. Unlike other parties, we do have a bit of a language barrier to overcome since their party platform is in French. Finding and reading this platform wasn't exactly easy. To get the platform, you go to the website and click on the link that says Platforme Électorale on the left column of the website. After that, you click on the "Télécharger la plateforme électorale" link in the new light box that appears. Clicking on the link will allow you to save the PDF. We will be using Google translate to get a general idea of what is being said in the platform. The Bloc Platform The issues of copyright can be found on page 42:

The Law on copyright does not take into account the impact of new technologies, the arrival of the Internet, and must be changed as soon as possible. Any work worthy wages, it is necessary for creative and creators can receive their due, while ensuring that consumers benefit from this new source of access to creation.

There certainly is some similarities between the Liberal and Bloc position in that it's difficult to tell whether their position is in favour of foreign record labels and movie studios or in favour of Canadian and Quebec interests. On the one hand, they seem to be repeating the propaganda of foreign interests while at the same time saying that consumers interests must be heard. So, hard to pin-point a position on that. Unlike the Liberals, though, the Bloc goes further:

Currently, illegal downloading is wrong artists, who receive nothing for their creations, while the ISPs are the only ones to receive the fruit of work of others.

This suggests that ISPs are the only people who are benefiting from music found online. I'd say that nothing could b further from the truth because, I, as an artist, wouldn't have anyone able to hear my music without the internet. I, as a creator, benefit from having a new medium to show off my work. Without the internet, I can say that very few, if any, would even be hearing my music. So, on the perspective of an artist, I flatly disagree with this assertion. The Bloc discusses Bill C-32 as well:

Bill C-32, introduced in June 2010 by the Conservatives, not only empowers industry and is limited to addressing the consumers who pay for it yet they Internet access.

Just reading this kind of gives me the impression that the Bloc really didn't read too much in to Bill C-32 given that it is overly general about C-32 in its description. In the 3.2.3 section on the same page, the Bloc says the following:

The Bloc Québécois will ensure that the new Act on copyright and fair disadvantage or not the creators or consumers, including an upgraded system of private copying by applying MP3 players and other portable digital players reasonable royalties to artists in redistribution, by abolishing the exemption of world of education with respect to payments of royalties, and recognizing the resale right for visual artists.

So, they want to remove any exception in copyright for educational institutions that are already cash-strapped as it is - especially to things like royalty hikes by Access Copyright which is its own can of worms. That comment alone sort of make it sounds like the Bloc are the mouth piece of Access Copyright which has no interest in siding with consumers in the slightest. In addition, they seem to want to remove re-sale rights from consumers and hand it over to rights holders instead. If I buy a CD, find out that I don't like the music on that CD, what gives rights holders the right to say I'm not allowed to re-sell that CD? I paid for that piece of plastic, what's the difference between re-selling that CD and re-selling a child's toy once it's outlived its usefulness? It gets even worse:

The Bloc Québécois is committed to fostering a formula requiring service providers Internet to pay a fee to a fund used to pay the creators Quebec injured by the illegal downloading of artistic products.

So, in other words, they want ISPs to pay a levy and funnel the money to rights holders. This is nothing short of double-dipping. If I were to go online while paying the hiked fees of access because of this levy, then go on eMusic and pay for music, why am I paying the artist twice for the same service? It's like I have to pay money to artists to drive to and from a music store just so I can pay for the music once I'm there. It's completely unfair for consumers. After an long search, we were unable to find any reference to Lawful Access and privacy. Whether it was because it was lost in translation in the 195 page document, or that it wasn't really covered is unclear. Overall Impression This is well and truly a good news and bad news case. The good news is that the Bloc is way more direct with their policies, the bad news is that it's not in the interest of Quebec or Canada. They seem to take an anti-consumer approach by simply listening to foreign corporations and running with it. Their track record on copyright isn't much better either. In 2008, the Bloc made some criticisms of Bill C-61 (one of the bills widely known as the Canadian DMCA) - and those criticisms were that the didn't go far enough. They argued that ISPs should be liable for copyright infringement. This position is reflected in the platform which means that their position has hardly changed since 2008. I don't live in Quebec, so I wouldn't be able to vote for or against them. However, should I have had that opportunity and if the election were based on these issues alone, I'd definitely vote against it. For a party that prides itself for being solely in the interest of Quebec, they sure seem to take an anti-Quebec approach with respect to copyright. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com. ]]>

We continue our platform election review on the Bloc Québécois party platform. As always, we are focusing specifically on copyright and privacy related issues.

We've already reviewed the Conservative and Liberal party platforms, so now we turn our attention to Bloc Québécois. At this point, I'd like to remind everyone that we are only looking at digital issues, so we are setting asside the issue of separation. Unlike other parties, we do have a bit of a language barrier to overcome since their party platform is in French. Finding and reading this platform wasn't exactly easy. To get the platform, you go to the website and click on the link that says Platforme Électorale on the left column of the website. After that, you click on the "Télécharger la plateforme électorale" link in the new light box that appears. Clicking on the link will allow you to save the PDF. We will be using Google translate to get a general idea of what is being said in the platform. The Bloc Platform The issues of copyright can be found on page 42:

The Law on copyright does not take into account the impact of new technologies, the arrival of the Internet, and must be changed as soon as possible. Any work worthy wages, it is necessary for creative and creators can receive their due, while ensuring that consumers benefit from this new source of access to creation.

There certainly is some similarities between the Liberal and Bloc position in that it's difficult to tell whether their position is in favour of foreign record labels and movie studios or in favour of Canadian and Quebec interests. On the one hand, they seem to be repeating the propaganda of foreign interests while at the same time saying that consumers interests must be heard. So, hard to pin-point a position on that. Unlike the Liberals, though, the Bloc goes further:

Currently, illegal downloading is wrong artists, who receive nothing for their creations, while the ISPs are the only ones to receive the fruit of work of others.

This suggests that ISPs are the only people who are benefiting from music found online. I'd say that nothing could b further from the truth because, I, as an artist, wouldn't have anyone able to hear my music without the internet. I, as a creator, benefit from having a new medium to show off my work. Without the internet, I can say that very few, if any, would even be hearing my music. So, on the perspective of an artist, I flatly disagree with this assertion. The Bloc discusses Bill C-32 as well:

Bill C-32, introduced in June 2010 by the Conservatives, not only empowers industry and is limited to addressing the consumers who pay for it yet they Internet access.

Just reading this kind of gives me the impression that the Bloc really didn't read too much in to Bill C-32 given that it is overly general about C-32 in its description. In the 3.2.3 section on the same page, the Bloc says the following:

The Bloc Québécois will ensure that the new Act on copyright and fair disadvantage or not the creators or consumers, including an upgraded system of private copying by applying MP3 players and other portable digital players reasonable royalties to artists in redistribution, by abolishing the exemption of world of education with respect to payments of royalties, and recognizing the resale right for visual artists.

So, they want to remove any exception in copyright for educational institutions that are already cash-strapped as it is - especially to things like royalty hikes by Access Copyright which is its own can of worms. That comment alone sort of make it sounds like the Bloc are the mouth piece of Access Copyright which has no interest in siding with consumers in the slightest. In addition, they seem to want to remove re-sale rights from consumers and hand it over to rights holders instead. If I buy a CD, find out that I don't like the music on that CD, what gives rights holders the right to say I'm not allowed to re-sell that CD? I paid for that piece of plastic, what's the difference between re-selling that CD and re-selling a child's toy once it's outlived its usefulness? It gets even worse:

The Bloc Québécois is committed to fostering a formula requiring service providers Internet to pay a fee to a fund used to pay the creators Quebec injured by the illegal downloading of artistic products.

So, in other words, they want ISPs to pay a levy and funnel the money to rights holders. This is nothing short of double-dipping. If I were to go online while paying the hiked fees of access because of this levy, then go on eMusic and pay for music, why am I paying the artist twice for the same service? It's like I have to pay money to artists to drive to and from a music store just so I can pay for the music once I'm there. It's completely unfair for consumers. After an long search, we were unable to find any reference to Lawful Access and privacy. Whether it was because it was lost in translation in the 195 page document, or that it wasn't really covered is unclear. Overall Impression This is well and truly a good news and bad news case. The good news is that the Bloc is way more direct with their policies, the bad news is that it's not in the interest of Quebec or Canada. They seem to take an anti-consumer approach by simply listening to foreign corporations and running with it. Their track record on copyright isn't much better either. In 2008, the Bloc made some criticisms of Bill C-61 (one of the bills widely known as the Canadian DMCA) - and those criticisms were that the didn't go far enough. They argued that ISPs should be liable for copyright infringement. This position is reflected in the platform which means that their position has hardly changed since 2008. I don't live in Quebec, so I wouldn't be able to vote for or against them. However, should I have had that opportunity and if the election were based on these issues alone, I'd definitely vote against it. For a party that prides itself for being solely in the interest of Quebec, they sure seem to take an anti-Quebec approach with respect to copyright. Have a tip? Want to contact the author? You can do so by sending a PM via the forums or via e-mail at drew@zeropaid.com. ]]> http://www.zeropaid.com/news/93121/canada%e2%80%99s-election-a-review-of-the-bloc-platform-on-digital-issues/feed/ 5