republican-creole
Search:  

 
 
   All ForumsHot TopicsGallery






how-to block ads


 
Forums » Canadian DMCA May Actually Be Worse » Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR
Share Topic:
RSS topic:
toggle:
flat / full
normal / watch
Post a:
Post a:
If not this then it will be something MUCH worse. »
« Welcome to our Nightmare....  

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL

Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR

I'll have to read that again, thought it said $500 per song max fine.

What I find more annoying are provisions against ripping CDs to media players. That's total crap.

TKJunkMail
Enjoy the sun
Premium
join:2002-03-03
Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast


2 edits

Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR

said by GlobalMind See Profile :

I'll have to read that again, thought it said $500 per song max fine.

What I find more annoying are provisions against ripping CDs to media players. That's total crap.
I'm no lawyer, but these 2 paragraphs in the bill seem to me to limit the damage to $500 max.

(1.1) If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1), a defendant who is an individual is liable for statutory damages of $500 in respect of all the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes and that are involved in the proceedings.

(1.3) If a copyright owner has made an election under subsection (1) in respect of a defendant referred to in subsection (1.1), no other copyright owner may elect statutory damages in respect of that defendant for the defendant’s infringements that were done for the defendant’s private purposes before the institution of the proceedings in which the election was made.
Also further explanation at this Canadian web site:
»www.ic.gc.ca/epic/site/crp-prda.···62e.html
What the proposed statutory damages provision would allow

* A court could only award $500 in statutory damages against an individual for all private use infringements identified in the lawsuit.

For example, if you downloaded five movies without authorization:
o Under current law, you could be liable for up to $100 000 in statutory damages
o Under the proposed bill, you would be liable for $500
* Once a copyright owner decides to sue an individual for $500 in statutory damages, all other private use infringements preceding the lawsuit may be compensated only by actual damages (even if these infringements involve the copyright material of others).

Limitations

* For infringements that are not for private purposes, the current range of statutory damages (between $500 and $20 000 for each work infringed) would remain available. For example:
o Posting music using the Internet or peer-to-peer (P2P) technology.
o Posting a copyright-protected work, such as a picture or video, onto a website such as Facebook or YouTube.
o Selling, renting or giving away a device (e.g., iPod) that contains copies of music that were originally copied onto the device by you for private purposes.
--
My BLOG .. .. Internet News .. .. My Web Page

mazhurg
Premium
join:2004-05-02
Portage La Prairie, MB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·MTS


1 edit

Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR

Ah, but there are a few little things that make that 500 dollars limit useless.

1) Most music downloaded (the most likely source of the infringements) are likely the result of bypassing some form of copyright lock (Most CDs after 2002). In that case, the penalty is increased to 20,000 dollars per infringement as the infringement now falls under a different section of the act and 21.1 no longer applies.

2) Ripping anything to a device that bypass a holders lock is subject to the same 20,000 dollars fine.

500 Dollars? right.

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL

1 edit

Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR

@mazhurg,

And thus all the rights holders place DRM on the CD so that to rip it you're bypassing and thus you're infringing.

Great how that works.

GlobalMind
Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy
Premium
join:2001-10-29
Hollywood, FL

Yea what I see there is that statement "all the defendant’s infringements" which I would bet you mean each file. Each file would be considered an act of infringement and thus subject to the $500 fine.

Just my read of it, but legislation like this is usually somewhat vague.
Forums » Canadian DMCA May Actually Be WorseIf not this then it will be something MUCH worse. »
« Welcome to our Nightmare....  


Saturday, 05-Dec 05:47:46 Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo | feedback | contact
over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.
page compression OFF
Most commented news this week
· [163] Comcast Releasing Promised Usage Meter
· [145] Avast Antivirus Has Gone Mad
· [126] Comcast Makes NBC Universal Acquisition Official
· [104] Graduate Student Unveils Sprint's GPS Sharing With Feds
· [101] Google Invades ISP, OpenDNS Turf With Google Public DNS
· [90] The Bandwidth Hog Does Not Exist
· [83] FCC Ponders Moving From PSTN To IP Voice
· [81] Latest Consumer Reports Survey Not Kind To AT&T
· [74] Sprint Defuses GPS Privacy Media Bomb
· [74] New Bill Aims To Limit ETFs
Most people now reading
· False positive in Avast! or is it real? [Security]
· Windows 7 boot manager editing questions [Microsoft Help]
· 3.x Feral Druid - Bear Tanking Guide [World of Warcraft]
· Farewell [Bell Canada]
· [Snow Leopard] NFS Mounts - no more Directory Utility [All Things Macintosh]
· [WIN7] Outlook express under Windows 7? [Microsoft Help]
· Evading throttling with uTP / uTorrent 1.9a [TekSavvy]
· DNS options, what are YOU using? [TekSavvy]
· What to use while demonoid is down? [Filesharing Software]
· Maximizing Rogue DPS for 3.1 [World of Warcraft]