
how-to block ads
|
  harwoodr Pornographic Memory Premium join:2002-09-05 Hamilton, ON
·Mountain Cable
| reply to Bell Martin Re: Canadian bill to target illegal downloads
Here's a good read by someone who is better at putting words to the problem than I am:
»www.brendonwilson.com/blog/2008/···ll-c-61/
quote: The bill is bad for Canadians for a number of reasons:
1. It reduces your rights: Consumers will continue to be able to use copyrighted materials for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting, but will no longer have the means to exercise those rights when the copyrighted materials are protected by DRM.
2. It reduces reduces the usefulness of your media: Consumers will no longer have the right to take commonly purchased physical media, such as DVDs, or downloaded DRM-protected files, such as digital music, and make copies for their personal use.
3. It forces you to buy media youve already purchased: Consumers will be unable to unlock media theyve legally purchased in the past for use on new devices, and hence will be forced to buy the same content again and again.
4. It makes your devices less useful: Consumers will be able to do less, not more, with new devices they purchase, as many of these device may, at any time, limit the users access to media they have a legal right to view, modify, or redistribute.
5. It reduces competition and innovation: Consumers will be unable to influence the market by finding new uses for their existing media and copyrighted materials, limiting the application of ingenuity that can lead to the creation of new applications and markets for Canadians and the world.
6. It makes the public domain works inaccessible: Consumers will have the right to re-use works in the public domain, but in cases where those public domain works are protected by DRM consumers will not have the means to exercise those rights and hence lose access to their own heritage.
-- "Yahoo Doré" is Who-speak for "Where the hell is my stuff?" - Howard Tayler - »www.schlockmercenary.com/ | |   harwoodr Pornographic Memory Premium join:2002-09-05 Hamilton, ON | reply to Bell Martin »ars.userfriendly.org/cartoons/?id=20080617
"no mashups, no criticism and no satire" | |   Cliffy Premium join:2003-06-29 Kitchener, ON clubs:
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| reply to elwoodblues And don't forget for almost 10 years consumers were asking media companies for the ability to purchase content online. They were willing to hand over money, but no one took them up on the offer. Imagine if big media got on this bandwagon as soon as they could have. I bet they would have been rolling in money.
And once we did start getting the ability to purchase digital content the ugly head of DRM appeared. I personally don't think DRM does anything more than annoy and "criminalize" the honest person. Like you mention, people that try and do the right thing get screwed over. It is the people that don't pay that are not inconvenienced at all. | |  elwoodblues Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30 Toronto, ON
| reply to Bell Martin I originally posted this in the Rogers forum , where there are mainly folks who are upset that their torrenting will be disrupted :
Here is what I have an issue with.
I'm not going to get into downloading or P2P of content or sharing that content with friends and family, we all know it's illegal.
My nephew recently got an IPod Nano for this birthday, my sister (his Aunt) decided it would be really cool to get him a couple of Star Wars movies he could watch on his Nano.
She bought them from the Itunes store and downloaded them to her Mac, burned them to a DVD and tried to put it on his NANO via his PC. NO SUCH LUCK, the DRM Prevents such an action.
She knows I can get it for her in a heartbeat, but I got an email from here ranting about trying to be legal and getting screwed over.
So now we have two choices (one currently illegal, the other would be illegal under Bill 61).
One I can download either a DVD(or find a version that will play on his Ipod) and compress it to QVGA (x264) or I can rip the DRM out of the movies.
In the case above she has have bought and paid for the content but due to "digtal locks" she's SOL trying to give him the movies.
Now you could argue, just install Itunes on his PC and buy it there, yes you are correct, but now I've had to buy the movies TWICE because of the DRM (and at the same time would ruin the surprise,but thats not the concern of Media Giants and remember most people aren't savvy enough to realize the content is only licensed for that one PC).
Also look at this: The DVD is currently some 13yrs old. I am going to assume that most of you here have seen a video cassette tape?
Pretty durable right? Unless you rip the tape out of the cartridge,not much is going to happen to it.
Now a DVD can be scratched, or rendered useless due to mishandling (by young kids), so a technologically savvy parent would backup the DVD or burn a copy for the kids to use, while preserving the original. Teach the kids how to handle the disc? Sure (and I have taught my oldest nephew how do to so), but accidents happen.
Preserving your investment in the content, you aren't stealing anything, but if Bill 61 became law, such parent could be considered a criminal and subject to a 20K fine.
Again you could argue, well if the kids have wrecked the DVD go out and buy another one. (and lets not get into the analogy of wrecked toys.. I can't make copies of those) Why? I have the ways and means of making a copy (for MY PERSONAL USE).
So ask yourself what have I done wrong? What have I done thats so wrong that warrants a large fine or imprisonment (in a Federal Penitentiary)
The Government, and the media giants will spin it in such a way that its about downloading (and that is an issue), but I have just shown you two perfectly legitimate ways in which a person or persons could (if caught) could be subject to large fines for breaking "digital locks"
What about background music for a video you made for YouTube? I'm not making a buck off that video (Google on the other hand.....) so unless I've gotten clearance, I could be subject to that same 20K fine. (and lets be honest what teen is going to be able to get clearance on a tune for free)
I'm all for intellectual property rights, but this law is just badly written (probably written my the same Media giants and comprises their wet dream wish list) that it just cries to be left on the order paper to die. | |  elwoodblues Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30 Toronto, ON
| reply to Clipper It's not fair to the consumer, but Big Media doesn't give a flying hoot about the consumer (You really gotta watch They Live It may be dated, but boy does it it hit close to home today), they want us to consume.. and by consume, they mean buy a copy of the content for each platform we want to use it on. | |  elwoodblues Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30 Toronto, ON
| reply to Tyreman said by Tyreman :Maybe they'll water down the bill to appease people who purchased the cd or dvd. allow them to move it to differing digital playback devices IF this bill goes forward, the reformists will take a page out of Mulroney's playbook. He introduced GST at 9%, people screamed, they howled (not unlike this bill). He dropped it to 7% and everything was silent.
I suspect they'll take some of the more ostentatious parts of the bill out (while remaing rather draconian) and all will be quiet. | |  elwoodblues Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30 Toronto, ON
| reply to DKS said by DKS :said by Hydraglass :(I could go on and on here) - in essence they want things to act like they did in the 1950s and 1960s. You couldn't copy vinyl records - you could only use them on record players. You couldn't record radio broadcasts or tv broadcasts - you had to watch them when they sent them - they knew best when you should sit down and listen to a radio or tv show afterall. There was no internet. There was no digital distribution. There was no time shifting. If you wanted "high def" you had to go to a theatre and watch content on 35mm or 70mm cellulose - when they wanted you to. Wrong. You could copy and LP or 45 to tape. You could record OTA TV to tape (if you have the money). If you lived in many parts of Canada you could easily timeshift, as shows were run at different times in Canada and the US. Sometimes episodes were seen only in Canada and not in the US at all (anyone remember the Smothers Brothers Comedy Hour?). And there were lots of other things we did of watching TV and surfing the internet. You've hit the nail on the wall, if the broadcast flag does indeed start preventing me from recording shows(time shifting) then I will putting up that Antenna, and watching my HD content Over the Air)and end up recording to my computer | |  elwoodblues Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30 Toronto, ON
| reply to StEC said by StEC :said by digitalfutur :Under the terms of purchase you only own the medium, not the content. Ownership of the content remains with the copyright holder. The EULA governs how you can use that content, including approved devices. Read up on what copyright means. If you don't like the copyright terms, don't buy the content. WOW your a piece of work you sound suspiciously like them RIAA/MPAA dudes...how much they paying you!? LMFAO That's actually true, even with DVD's , you don't "own" that movie, you are granted a license to view in a private setting (which dosn't mean inviting ten of your friends over.. thats a "Public" viewing") | |  elwoodblues Elwood Blues
join:2006-08-30 Toronto, ON
| reply to Airwolf said by Airwolf :What about if it was a DVD from a yard sale? Supposed to ask if they take Master Card? In this case you would have the original DVD, so there is nothing to worry about | |   harwoodr Pornographic Memory Premium join:2002-09-05 Hamilton, ON
·Mountain Cable
| reply to Bell Martin Re: Canadian bill to target illegal downloads
Thank you advocat - I'd sent out some feelers to friends in the know in order to get that info and you beat them to the punch.
So - again - since it is legal _now_ to make copies for personal use or to format shift... is it wrong?
BTW, EULAs and edicts from copyright holders do _not_ overrule the letter of law unless they give additional permissions - not take them away. -- "Yahoo Doré" is Who-speak for "Where the hell is my stuff?" - Howard Tayler - »www.schlockmercenary.com/ | |   Clipper
join:2002-05-23 Stoney Creek, ON
1 edit | reply to dirtyjeffer said by dirtyjeffer :i don't understand why they don't understand that taking the music/videos/software/whatever and not paying for it is wrong...i am not trying to preach to anyone, hell, i have a bunch of mp3's i downloaded a while ago too...but you can't complain about possible changes when they attempt to fix something that is clearly broken. We're not talking about downloading music, which should, 100%, be illegal.
We're not talking about making a copy of a DVD and sharing it with your friends, which should, 100%, be illegal.
We are talking about format shifting content purchased through one medium, to use on another. With the current form of the Bill, this would be illegal. An individual would have to purchase a second copy of the EXACT same content to use on an alternate media, for personal use ONLY.
That's wrong and borders on criminal.
The current copyright act has multiple provisions for the fair personal use exceptions. Interpret that as, fair dealings for the consumer. The entire copyright act exists to protect the copyright holders.
To summarize, the copyright act protects the copyright holders by it's mere existance, and the exceptions and fair dealing provisions of the act protect the consumer.
Both parties are protected and both parties have their interests taken into account.
Jim Prentice even said this himself: The spirit of the amendments are to bring it up to speed with the current technological capabilities, to make it fair for copyright holders and consumers alike.
This encryption bypass provision does not make it fair for consumers and is the only part of the amendments I have a severe issue with. | |   Advocat Premium join:2002-07-21 Ontario
3 edits | reply to Bell Martin It's interesting, but probably not surprising, that we essentially have two groups posting. One says they agree with the new bill. The other says they agree that copyright holders should be paid, but that criminalizing actions which were specifically legal up till this bill is an excessive act by a government caving in to US pressure.
Very few people are saying breaking or copying everything and placing on the Net should be legal... but each side just keeps repeating their mantra without listening to the other side.
Has the making copies of digital material, or converting it for use in other formats, been legal according to the Copyright Act?
Absolutely, under Section 30.6 of the Act, which was deemed to cover electronic media:
"Permitted acts
30.6 It is not an infringement of copyright in a computer program for a person who owns a copy of the computer program that is authorized by the owner of the copyright to
(a) make a single reproduction of the copy by adapting, modifying or converting the computer program or translating it into another computer language if the person proves that the reproduced copy is
(i) essential for the compatibility of the computer program with a particular computer,
(ii) solely for the persons own use, and
(iii) destroyed immediately after the person ceases to be the owner of the copy; or
(b) make a single reproduction for backup purposes of the copy or of a reproduced copy referred to in paragraph (a) if the person proves that the reproduction for backup purposes is destroyed immediately when the person ceases to be the owner of the copy of the computer program."
On the flip side, under Moral Rights Infrigement, Section 28.1, "
(a) a change in the location of a work, the physical means by which a work is exposed or the physical structure containing a work,
or
(b) steps taken in good faith to restore or preserve the work
shall not, by that act alone, constitute a distortion, mutilation or other modification of the work."
In other words, the new bill does indeed take actions which had been fully legal and make them illegal. It also seeks to stand a copyright holder's moral rights on it's head, giving them total and permanent control of not only the original work, but container of the work and how it can be viewed. I'm just waiting for a major electronics company to announce a new DVD which must be played on their player, which must be hooked to one of their monitors of no less than "x" size, can only be viewed by the purchaser (not friends or family members), it can't be transported away from the place it was first played, etc. etc. Hey, if the new law gives copyrights holders total control of how the media can be viewed, the sky's the limit, depending only on court challenges and what the market will bear.
Truthfully, we've been using the wrong analogy. The media companies don't want to turn the clocks back to the 60's. They want to go back to pre-radio days, where -- if you wanted entertainment -- you went to the theatre. Every single person had to pay every time they viewed the play, it could only be viewed at a place and time of the right-holder's choosing, in a venue where the right-holder had total control over the viewer. -- Credulous: having views about the world, the universe and humanity's place in it that are shared only by very unsophisticated people and the most intelligent and advanced mathematicians and physicists. | |   dirtyjeffer Merry Christmas Premium join:2002-02-21 London, ON
·Rogers Hi-Speed
| reply to Bell Martin sorry...i have to agree with DKS on this...while i don't particularly agree with parts of the proposed legislation (which probably won't go anywhere anyway), i can completely understand the need for it...back before the days of the internet, if you wanted music, you went to the record store and bought it...if you didn't have the money to buy maybe as much as you wanted, you did what i did, taped it off the radio station (albeit, this was short lived)...today's generation feels the world owes them everything, and that they shouldn't have to pay a dime for anything...i don't understand why they don't understand that taking the music/videos/software/whatever and not paying for it is wrong...i am not trying to preach to anyone, hell, i have a bunch of mp3's i downloaded a while ago too...but you can't complain about possible changes when they attempt to fix something that is clearly broken. -- Best Marketplace Ever: »www.cbc.ca/marketplace/speed_bumps/ | |   Hydraglass Premium join:2002-05-08 Kingston, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to DKS Re: Copyright bill protests surge online
As a content creator myself (web back-end s/w and content developer) I lean the other way - copyright laws should protect my customers and the consumers, and if I don't like the game I take my ball and go home and stop developing content. Copyright laws are supposed to encourage people to be creative while providing something useful to consumers. If the laws piss off consumers so much they don't want my warez, then I'm out of a job anyway. For the most part I publish the vast majority of my work under either a creative commons or a public domain notice -- if I create something useful others can use 5 or 10 or 15 years from now - so be it - I don't want them to have to contact me, or feel encumbered in how they use it.
I don't lean as far left as the "FSF/GPL" type licences - they try to use copyright against the content creators essentially telling you that you can do anything with their created works as long as you do it in a way that's "good for society" in their eyes. To me that's just as encumbering as telling them they can't do anything with what I've created. My goal is to create a solution for a single customer on their demand when there's no other solution out there - once that solution is created my personally created work is free for the taking - I just ask to be paid *one time* by the person who requested me to make said content - certainly not over and over by anyone who wants to use it in the future -- that would encourage me to stop creating content once I built up a small library of work.
Sure my situation is different than music and movies - but in return I don't begrudge them getting paid *once* by each customer who wants their content either - but once that customer has their content they should be free to do what they want with it - just as my customers are. For all I care my customers could charge other people to look at what I created and make a fortune -- if their customers are so gullible so be it - if they look close enough they can find everything I've created to this day for free (as in beer and speech) somewhere however. | |   DKS Damn Kidney Stones Premium,ExMod 2002 join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON clubs:
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Hydraglass Re: Canadian bill to target illegal downloads
said by Hydraglass :Right of First Sale. Right of Fair Dealing. (edit to add:) Here's the deal on Fair Dealing in Canada: Actually, here is what Fair Dealing is. And it's not exactly as you suggest. In fact, fair dealing in copyright matters isn't what we are discussing at all. -- Need-based health care not greed-based health care. | |   DKS Damn Kidney Stones Premium,ExMod 2002 join:2001-03-22 Owen Sound, ON clubs:
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to happylurk Re: Copyright bill protests surge online
said by happylurk :
Critics of the proposed legislation say the clause invalidates all of the other rights granted, thus heavily skewing the bill in favour of copyright holders. And as a creator of copyright content, I have no difficulty with this provision. as I said, It's not about you. It's about fair return for the creator. -- Need-based health care not greed-based health care. | |   happylurk
@look.ca
| reply to Bell Martin »www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2008···?ref=rss
quote: Copyright bill protests surge online
Last Updated: Friday, June 13, 2008 | 6:20 PM ET
By Peter Nowak CBC News
More than 7,000 new members joined a Facebook group protesting the government's copyright bill on Friday.More than 7,000 new members joined a Facebook group protesting the government's copyright bill on Friday.
Thousands of Canadians wasted no time protesting the government's copyright reform bill, piling on to websites and joining internet-based letter-writing campaigns on Friday.
More than 7,000 people joined a Facebook group within a day of the bill's introduction on Thursday morning, bringing its total membership to more than 48,000 people.
The group started on the popular social-networking site late last year by Michael Geist, a University of Ottawa internet law professor is credited for scaring the Conservatives out of introducing the bill in December after initially attracting more than 20,000 members.
Many of the members of the group posted messages on Friday saying they were taking political action in an effort to prevent the controversial legislation from becoming law.
"I just phoned the Liberal Party of Canada and said I would vote Liberal for the first time in my life if they brought down the government over this bill," Ray Klassen wrote.
"I've requested a in person meeting with Dawn Black, MP for Coquitlam/New Westminster. I live only 1 minute from her office up on Austin," wrote Brian B of Vancouver.
Bill C-61, introduced Thursday by Industry Minister Jim Prentice and Heritage Minister Josée Verner, seeks to update Canada's copyright rules and bring it in line with the country's obligations under the World Intellectual Property Organization treaty signed more than a decade ago. The bill spells out Canadians' rights with respect to digital copying of content, granting permissions to make copies of books, photographs, music and other media.
It found support with a number of entertainment industry groups, including the Entertainment Software Association of Canada and the Canadian Recording Industry Association, who praised it for proposing methods of stopping illegal piracy of copyrighted works.
However, the source of most of the protests is the bill's anti-circumvention clause, which would allow copyright holders to place digital locks on content and thus prevent copies from being made. Critics of the proposed legislation say the clause invalidates all of the other rights granted, thus heavily skewing the bill in favour of copyright holders.
Website sends e-mails to MPs
The Facebook group has also splintered into regional sub-groups, each with hundreds of members. Most of the groups pointed members to Copyright For Canadians, a website run by the Ottawa-based Canadian Internet Policy & Public Interest Clinic, and the San Francisco-based Electronic Frontier Foundation. The website has an automated system that allows visitors to send protest e-mails to their respective MPs. As of Friday afternoon, more than 3,200 messages had been sent.
The copyright bill has set off an unprecedented wave of political activism on the internet in Canada, Geist said.
"What we've seen over the past 24 hours has been nothing short of remarkable," he said. "Literally tens of thousands of Canadians are speaking out with an element of shock that the government would introduce this legislation in the manner that it has."
One reader of Geist's blog e-mailed him to say that the bill's introduction had awakened their sense of political activism.
"Besides voting, I've never taken action politically, but I've now got a face-to-face meeting set up with Guy Lauzon, our MP for [StormontDundasSouth Glengarry] on the 24th," the reader wrote. "He'll know first-hand that this bill, if passed, will cause him to lose votes."
Other bloggers also tore into the proposed legislation and the government.
Harper campaigner outraged at bill
Robert Phillips, who said he has campaigned on behalf of Prime Minister Stephen Harper and was a former executive of the Brock University Conservative Club, wrote on Friday that he has turned his back on the party.
"Whether it does or does not pass, the fact remains that the party and whatever candidate happens to be in my riding will receive one less vote come the next election," he wrote.
Many members of the Facebook groups called for rallies to be organized over the summer. A possible focal point will be the Ontario riding of Guelph, where a by-election must be called by September. Brenda Chamberlain, a Liberal, currently holds the riding but the Conservatives have targeted her seat.
Students at the nearby University of Waterloo, a hotspot of Canadian technology, could turn the by-election into a proxy battle over the copyright bill.
Geist said the sheer number of people protesting online is likely to translate into protests in the real world.
"You're going to see the concern and protests build over the summer rather than go away," he said.
The bill is unlikely to progress much over the next few months as Parliament is due to soon break for its summer session. When it resumes, the bill will receive its second reading and then be sent off to a committee for closer scrutiny. The Conservatives could make it a confidence bill, meaning that if opposition parties voted it down, they would force an election.
Members of the Facebook protest group mused over the possibility of the government being brought down by its copyright bill.
"Wouldn't it be funny if an election was fought over iPods?" wrote Charles Troster of Vancouver.
| |   Hydraglass Premium join:2002-05-08 Kingston, ON
·Bell Sympatico
2 edits | reply to DKS Re: Canadian bill to target illegal downloads
It sounds to me like in your opinion the only thing copyright for is control of how someone uses something created by another. Reality is much different - let's use the ole' Car analogy here: Copyright is akin to a patent on a car in many ways: 1a. I buy a BMW 335i, I can't make duplicate BMW 335i's and sell them as BMW 335i's - that's granted. 1b. I buy a DVD of the movie Shawshank Redemption. I can't make copies of that DVD and sell them as Shawshank Redemption. 2a. I can take my BMW 335i and drive it on any road in any country I want. I can leave it in my garage for 15 years if I want. I can paint it purple with yellow polka dots if I want. I can take the tires and wheels off it and fit it with wheel-track systems if I want. I can rip every body panel off it and drive it like a dune buggy through the desert if I want. I can sell the original BMW as I bought it to someone and the factory warranty will even still cover it. I can build a duplicate BMW in my garage piece by piece and drive that vehicle on any road I want - I just can't sell it. 2b. I *should* be able to take my DVD of Shawshank Redemption and watch it on any DVD player I want. I should be able to take the bits from that disk and put them on my computer to watch it. I should be able to take the bits from that disk and load them into my 3" screen iPod which I can carry with me, and use the A/V cable to plug same iPod into my TV in my hotel room in Tokyo (as we all know Cable TV in Tokyo sucks) and watch the movie there. I should be able to put the DVD of the movie into the movie player in my SUV and watch it. I should be able to take the DVD and sell it to someone down the street and they should have the same rights I should have while I had that DVD.
Right of First Sale. Right of Fair Dealing. (edit to add:) Here's the deal on Fair Dealing in Canada: The Six principal criteria for evaluating fair dealing.
1. The Purpose of the Dealing Is it for research, private study, criticism, review or news reporting? It expresses that "these allowable purposes should not be given a restrictive interpretation or this could result in the undue restriction of users' rights." 2. The Character of the Dealing How were the works dealt with? Was there a single copy or were multiple copies made? Were these copies distributed widely or to a limited group of people? Was the copy destroyed after its purpose was accomplished? What are the normal practices of the industry? 3. The Amount of the Dealing How much of the work was used? What was the importance of the infringed work? Quoting trivial amounts may alone sufficiently establish fair dealing. In some cases even quoting the entire work may be fair dealing. 4. Alternatives to the Dealing Was a "non-copyrighted equivalent of the work" available to the user? Could the work have been properly criticized without being copied? 5. The Nature of the Work Copying from a work that has never been published could be more fair than from a published work "in that its reproduction with acknowledgement could lead to a wider public dissemination of the work - one of the goals of copyright law. If, however, the work in question was confidential, this may tip the scales towards finding that the dealing was unfair." 6. Effect of the Dealing on the Work Is it likely to affect the market of the original work? "Although the effect of the dealing on the market of the copyright owner is an important factor, it is neither the only factor nor the most important factor that a court must consider in deciding if the dealing is fair." A statement that a dealing infringes may not be sufficient, but evidence will often be required.
Being able to format shift media for personal use is covered as said by Clipper above, under current laws (just checked... as per my lawyer-in-law I just emailed this question to.) | |   Clipper
join:2002-05-23 Stoney Creek, ON
| reply to DKS said by DKS :Because the content was not delivered in the particular medium you want. You do not have the right to alter the delivery method. That is controlled by the copyright owner. Again, It's not about you. It's the rights of the owner of the intellectual property which are being defended here. Here's where you are wrong.
Taken from the current Copyright Act »www.cb-cda.gc.ca/info/act-e.html#rid-33770
80. 1) Subject to subsection (2), the act of reproducing all or any substantial part of
(a) a musical work embodied in a sound recording,
(b) a performer's performance of a musical work embodied in a sound recording, or
(c) a sound recording in which a musical work, or a performer's performance of a musical work, is embodied
onto an audio recording medium for the private use of the person who makes the copy does not constitute an infringement of the copyright in the musical work, the performer's performance or the sound recording.
And this part is not being amended by Bill C-61.
I have a right to make copy, yet Bill c-61 says I can't. That's what's wrong.
What the f*** is the purpose of an iPod if you can't move music to it? Oh ya, I have to buy the music from iTunes, then again from a music store if I want it on a CD.
How is that fair to the consumer?
This law needs to be fair to both consumers and copyright holders. The interests of both, not just one. | |
|