  GlobalMind Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy Premium join:2001-10-29 Hollywood, FL 1 edit | reply to mazhurg 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
| reply to TKJunkMail 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. |
|
  mazhurg Premium join:2004-05-02 Portage La Prairie, MB
·TekSavvy Solutions..
·MTS
1 edit | reply to TKJunkMail 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. |
|
  TKJunkMail Enjoy the sun Premium join:2002-03-03 Avalon, NJ
·Sprint Mobile Broa..
·Comcast
2 edits | reply to GlobalMind said by GlobalMind :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 |
|
  GlobalMind Domino Dude, POWER Systems Guy Premium join:2001-10-29 Hollywood, FL | reply to TKJunkMail 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. |
|