Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR in http://www.dslreports.com/forum/r20638887 en Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:54:27 EDT Tue, 08 Dec 2009 22:54:27 EDT Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20641267 KrK :
said by TKJunkMail See Profile :

It has a very much more realistic fine for illegal downloading - a $500 MAX fine if caught. And that is NOT per song or movie. It is the total fine no matter how much downloading you did. That is much more reasonable than the $100's of thousands in fines US violators can be hit with.
I am surprised to hear you say this, and somewhat impressed... My interpretation from various threads lead me to classify you in the "All downloaders are terrorist scum and should be shot at dawn" camp of extremist type positions on this issue.

There's a MAJOR catch though. This applies to DOWNLOADERS only. IE let's say you downloaded from an FTP or Usenet group. If you run P2P then you are considered to be a full scale terrorist-criminal-profiteer type and shall "experience the full power of this fully-operational battle station" type scorched-earth life destroying attack.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20641267 Sat, 14 Jun 2008 01:11:29 EDT Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20638887 GlobalMind : @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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20638887 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:44:32 EDT Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20638881 GlobalMind : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20638881 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 15:43:35 EDT Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20637629 mazhurg : 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20637629 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 11:47:28 EDT Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20637196 basquiat : I'm not sure but I believe that provision only applies if you don't break any copy protection "features". The fine is much more otherwise. This means that you can't back up DVD's or rip music from a copy-protected CD or even play a CD with Windows-only copy protection on a Linux or Mac box.

This is a ridiculous bill that caters solely to business interests and will hopefully never become law.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20637196 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:27:40 EDT Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20637163 TKJunkMail :
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]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20637163 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:22:04 EDT Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20637139 andyb : Actually according to Geist that would depend on the number of copyrights the item has.Say it has 3 copyrights then the fine is 1,500.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20637139 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:17:56 EDT Re: Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20637131 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.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20637131 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 10:16:09 EDT Also a long discussion of this in Canadian forum at BBR http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20636997 TKJunkMail : There is also a long discussion of this in the Canadian forum here at BBR:

»Canadian bill to target illegal downloads

An interesting point is that most followers of this issue believe it will be left to die and will never be passed in to law.

But there is one plus in the bill. It has a very much more realistic fine for illegal downloading - a $500 MAX fine if caught. And that is NOT per song or movie. It is the total fine no matter how much downloading you did. That is much more reasonable than the $100's of thousands in fines US violators can be hit with.]]> http://www.dslreports.com/forum/remark,20636997 Fri, 13 Jun 2008 09:48:10 EDT