Hydraglass
Premium
join:2002-05-08
Kingston, ON
 ·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Clipper
Re: Canadian bill to target illegal downloads
I think DKS is of the same school as many of these media folks and others in that industry:
Pay every single time you view/watch/interact with/enjoy content.
In their world these are what they would like to see:
1. You buy a DVD for the cost of the plastic disc plus some minimal fee for promoting/marketing/shipping. You pay some incremental fee every single time you watch that disc.
2. You want your media in "portable digital" format you pay for separately on every single device you want to use media on.
3. Your buy software and it can only be used on the computer you buy it for - it can never be sold or transferred to anyone - any time you want to use a different computer you buy the software, from them, directly again (even if the old computer it was on has been destroyed or "reformatted".)
4. Your "online" or "streaming" media must be watched when it's sent to you by the content distributor as they know best when it's time for you to watch their content.
5. Television content can only be time shifted if the distributor wants you to be able to - ads can't be skipped - and you can only watch your "shifted" content once and it's deleted - just like if it was on the air.
(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.
I guess there's arguments for both sides - to some - those were the "good times and simple times" of media and entertainment... the family gathered around the house when The Honeymooners came on - watched them as a family and laughed - watched their forced advertising - and moved on... to others - the world moves on and we're not all technological luddites - and think things should change to meet modern means. Perhaps there shouldn't be 4 layers of people making money between content creator and consumer - maybe only 1 (i.e. You Tube, etc.).
In the end - all we can do is try and convince the gov't we don't want things like they used to be. |
|
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  :(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. 
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
Tyreman
join:2002-10-08
2 edits | reply to Bell Martin
How the world has shifted.
in 1970 to '73 I had a panasonic 5" reel to reel battery /ac recorder playback unit.
in about 72 I got the top load pany portable high quality cassette.
Had every Doors, Led Zep, procul harum,blah blah and on and on taped.
being an electronics major we had patch panels built into our parents stereos.
at the time we made them to allow taping off the units at the pre amp out stage then to a mini mono 1/8' jack to the recorders input.
we could by the patch panel(switches installed) have the "sound" directed to our headphones not to the entertainment sets speakers.
as of course if you had strict military parents it wasn't music but dysfunctional noise to weaken the taken.
Though my parents tolerated it with my patch panel.
They didn't even complain about me taping the stuff though my dad did lament don't be letting a bunch of other listeners tape off your machine.
he did notice i had a patch cord made up correctly to do just this.
You see back in those days it was cheaper to make it up than buy it unlike today sometimes.
You often couldn't buy exactly what you needed pre made. unless radio shack had it quite often Lafayette Electronics did in the US so we ordered from them sometimes.
Boy we'd be locked up today.  |
|
Feets
Premium
join:2002-12-11
Hamilton, ON
 ·Cogeco Cable
| reply to DKS
said by DKS :said by harwoodr :DKS - personally, this isn't about stealing. Yes, people who download music/movies/whatever are stealing - fine. However, I don't feel that someone who rips a DVD, that they bought, in order to put it on their ipod is stealing. Under this bill, they are liable for a $20k fine... per incident. That's just wrong. No, it's theft. I would honestly like to hear the reasoning behind that statement. I can't fathom how it could be construed as theft. |
|
DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
clubs:
·Bell Sympatico
| said by Feets :said by DKS :said by harwoodr :DKS - personally, this isn't about stealing. Yes, people who download music/movies/whatever are stealing - fine. However, I don't feel that someone who rips a DVD, that they bought, in order to put it on their ipod is stealing. Under this bill, they are liable for a $20k fine... per incident. That's just wrong. No, it's theft. I would honestly like to hear the reasoning behind that statement. I can't fathom how it could be construed as theft. Modifying content beyond the intent of the original owner of the copyright.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
Hydraglass
Premium
join:2002-05-08
Kingston, ON
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to DKS
said by DKS :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. I'm referring to a time before any home users could do this - it feels to me like the level of control most of the media and content companies are looking for was before what you are referring to. In 1959 no home user could tape a TV show. In 1959 no home user could tape a radio broadcast without some serious expensive equipment. In 1959 no one could time-shift or place-shift any media. This is the "golden days of media" that the likes of RIAA and MPAA ache for -- we were a 100% captive audience, and even if we could afford the equipment to record some sort of media, there was a noticeable amount of degradation even in a first generation copy - thus making the "original" still the best -- if you managed to have $10k in recording equipment in your house and could record copies of a record or a radio broadcast, no one else would have the equipment to listen, and even yourself, when listening would find the copy to have noticeable loss.
That's the "time and place" media companies yearn for. Digital duplication blew them away - the first, 5th, and 100th copy was identical to the first. If you have a DVD and rip it into and ISO, bit for bit it's 7-8GB of data usually - you can then burn 100 DVD's from that ISO file. Each of those 100 DVD's could source 100 more DVD's burned to identical ISO's... you now have 10,000 DVD's from one - and no one could tell the difference. That's bad for a media company. You could record from a HD radio, satellite radio, or rip from a CD in 384kb Ogg or VBR Mpeg4 - and 100,000 people could get that same 10 meg file and have the exact same content as the first person. That's bad for a media company. That means there's NO control once something is out there. There's no control. If you're used to the model I just outlined - that's a killer. |
|
Clipper
join:2002-05-23
Stoney Creek, ON
| reply to DKS
said by DKS :Modifying content beyond the intent of the original owner of the copyright. Encryption isn't content.
The content doesn't get changed. |
|
DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
clubs:
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Hydraglass
said by Hydraglass :I'm referring to a time before any home users could do this - it feels to me like the level of control most of the media and content companies are looking for was before what you are referring to. In 1959 no home user could tape a TV show. If they had the money, they could.
In 1959 no home user could tape a radio broadcast without some serious expensive equipment. Not true. My uncle's Phillips AM/FM/SW radio had a Tape Out jack that went to his Phillips reel to reel tape recorder
In 1959 no one could time-shift or place-shift any media. Not true. Depending on your location, you could time shift between US and Canadian broadcasts and in adjacent time zones.
--
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 Clipper
said by Clipper :said by DKS :Modifying content beyond the intent of the original owner of the copyright. Encryption isn't content. The content doesn't get changed. Is the form changed from the original? If it's without permission, it's not going to be legal.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
Clipper
join:2002-05-23
Stoney Creek, ON
| said by DKS :Is the form changed from the original? If it's without permission, it's not going to be legal. I understand the bill in it's current form would result in this.
What I'm saying is that it shouldn't.
From the copyright holder's perspective, they've received their payment from me when I purchase the DVD or CD. Why should I be limited from enjoying that product on whatever medium I choose? I paid for the content. How I enjoy the content is not any of the copyright holder's business.
The copyright holder gets his pay; That's all that matters here.
If any individual decrypts it and provides for P2P uploading, then that should be illegal, definitely. But transferring it to an ipod to watch on vacation or on a long road trip should not. |
|
Tyreman
join:2002-10-08
1 edit | 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 |
|
Advocat
Premium
join:2002-07-21
Ontario
4 edits | reply to Clipper
said by Clipper :The copyright holder gets his pay; That's all that matters here. If any individual decrypts it and provides for P2P uploading, then that should be illegal, definitely. But transferring it to an ipod to watch on vacation or on a long road trip should not. This is the crux of why so many people are upset, what they consider to be fair usage of materials they have purchased. We aren't intending to sell it cut-rate across the Internet, or put it on a P2P network. Thus, the reaction to a bill which effectively criminalizes an inoffensive behaviour without criminal intent.
Why then is it in the bill in the first place? Because law enforcement and the copyright holders have recognized they cannot effectively locate and/or stop the hackers who break and share illegal programs, nor can they control the Internet through which the material is shared.
Thus, they are left with going after the only people they can catch, which are ordinary people with stable online accounts, through which they can be easily located. Rather than admit they really can't control the new environment and then go on to develop new business models, these interest groups, in combination with our politicians, have decided it would be better to criminalize citizens for indulging in behaviour which has been common since the invention of the tape recorder, video recorder, and dvd burner... they're effectively turning back the clock 30 or more years.
They wish the act of copying to be illegal, rather than the act of distribution. They aren't interested in fair use with no criminal intent by the purchaser, they're interested in creating extra profits by forcing people to re-buy the item over, and over, and over, and over. As they've done in the US, by threatening a few people with lawsuits and horrendous fines, they hope the majority of citizens will be scared off from copying/sharing materials... and go back to buying from them.
Effectively, the bill is a business-sponsored exercise in creating a national climate of fear... for the sole purpose of increasing the bottom line of corporate interests. Which is why so much of the bill seems targeted at ordinary individuals rather than large-scale hackers/distributors.
Why would our politicians support this bill? Pressure from the US, pressure from Canadian media outlets, and, let us not forget the fact that every time Canadians download or copy something they could be forced to re-buy, the Federal and Provincial governments lose tax revenue... something that most people overlook.
Seeing our own politician's combination of spinelessness, bowing to pressure from interest groups rather than discussing fair use with stakeholders, its obvious that that the bill will be allowed to die only if a large portion of Canadians stand up and let it loudly be known this is not acceptable... there isn't much doubt the announcement of this bill is by way of a trial balloon by Harper and his business cronies... oops, I meant "supporters".
--
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. |
|
Feets
Premium
join:2002-12-11
Hamilton, ON
·Cogeco Cable
| reply to DKS
said by DKS :Is the form changed from the original? If it's without permission, it's not going to be legal. Legal is one thing, moral/right/correct is another. Do you think it's immoral or wrong to watch a (paid for) DVD movie on an iPod? |
|
harwoodr
Pornographic Memory
Premium
join:2002-09-05
Hamilton, ON
·Mountain Cable
| reply to DKS
said by DKS :No, it's theft. Actually, no - it's circumvention of a copy protection mechanism... you're allowed to do it with CDs because there's no copy protection.
Now, the copy protection with DVDs is lame and has been cracked since the late 90s... but that's neither here nor there.
--
"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
·Mountain Cable
| reply to DKS
said by DKS :You could record OTA TV to tape Under this bill, you would only be allowed to keep that tape for a short period of time... keeping it without erasing it would be against the law.
--
"Yahoo Doré" is Who-speak for "Where the hell is my stuff?" - Howard Tayler - »www.schlockmercenary.com/ |
|
Cliffy
Premium
join:2003-06-29
Kitchener, ON
clubs:
·TekSavvy Solutions..
| said by harwoodr :Under this bill, you would only be allowed to keep that tape for a short period of time... keeping it without erasing it would be against the law. And of course digital broadcasts and PVR's are able to use flags to set these limits, with the consumer having no recourse. |
|
harwoodr
Pornographic Memory
Premium
join:2002-09-05
Hamilton, ON | Unless of course you're using a non-standard PVR... like a myth-tv box. |
|
DKS
Damn Kidney Stones
Premium,ExMod 2002
join:2001-03-22
Owen Sound, ON
clubs:
·Bell Sympatico
| reply to Clipper
said by Clipper :said by DKS :Is the form changed from the original? If it's without permission, it's not going to be legal. I understand the bill in it's current form would result in this. What I'm saying is that it shouldn't. From the copyright holder's perspective, they've received their payment from me when I purchase the DVD or CD. Why should I be limited from enjoying that product on whatever medium I choose? 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.
--
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 Feets
said by Feets :said by DKS :Is the form changed from the original? If it's without permission, it's not going to be legal. Legal is one thing, moral/right/correct is another. Do you think it's immoral or wrong to watch a (paid for) DVD movie on an iPod? I don't own an iPod, nor do I intend to buy one. Watching a movie on a 3" screen is something I did as a child. I have no desire to revisit those days.
--
Need-based health care not greed-based health care. |
|
